1 1 (5om?U ^am ^rJinnl Eibtarjj Cornell University Library KF 570.K41 V.I A treatise on the law of real property. 3 1924 018 814 370 Cornell University Library 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/cu31924018814370 THE LAW OF REAL PPvOPERTY. A TREATISE ON THE LA¥ OF REAL PROPERTY IN THREE VOLUMES - P.M^^'"^^ JAMES M. KERR YOLUME I. NEW YOKE AND ALBANY BANKS & BROTHERS, LAW PUBLISHERS 1895 COFTEIGHT JAMES M. KEKR 1895 PEEFACE. It has been the aim of the author to set forth in this work the law of real property, as it exists in the United States, and to give an account of the origin and history of the principles upon which this law is based. Incor- porated in the work are citations from American, Eng- lish, and Canadian adjudicated cases which enforce and illustrate the principles and doctrines of this branch of the law. "While our law r^ating to real property is founded upon the principles of the Common Law, yet some of the doctrines are derived from the Civil Law, — particularly those relating to equity and equitable estates (including Powers, Trusts, and Uses). The author has sought to give an account of the origin and history of principles, so as to meet the wants of the student just entering upon the subject. It is thought that the short account of Feudal Law, of Old English Tenures and Mod- ern English Tenures, and the origin of Chancery Powers, will be of assistance to the student in arriving at a clear conception of the present doctrines of this branch of the law. The author has sought to make this treatise a manual for the busy lawyer, wherein he can find discussed the various questions liable to come up in every-day practice. All the various estates, the methods of their creation, and their incidents are given especial attention. The chapter on Estate by the Curtesy is thought to furnish the only systematic and exhaustive treatise on the sub- ject. The chapter on Dower is also very full. The same is true of Estates for Years (including Farm Leases), Homestead Exemptions, and Equitable Estates (includ- vi PREFACE. ing Powers, Trusts, and Uses). Joint Estates (including the Partition thereof), Mortgages, Deeds, Title, Eights of Common, Ways, Easements, and Eents are fully discussed. In order to make this work of service to the profession, the author has referred to all reports and reporters where ■ the cases cited may be found, so that the practitioner may examine the authorities relied upon from the books on his shelves ; for this double citation will enable him to find at once the original report, no matter what series of official or unofficial reports he may own or have ac- cess to. This, it is thought, will be a great saving of time and trouble to the persons using this treatise. These duplicate citations have been made to the National Eeporter System, which embraces the whole body of American adjudications for the last decade ; to the American Decisions, the American Eeports, the American State Eeports, the Lawyers' Eeports Annotated, the Law- yers' Co-operative Publishing Company's edition of the United States Eeports, Moak's English Eeports, the English Common Law Eeports, the English Law and Equity Eeports, the Eevised Eeports, Smith's Leading Cases, and Ballard's Annual of the Law of Eeal Prop- erty. To render this treatise further serviceable, the cases are arranged in an orderly manner ; alphabetically ac- cording to States, followed by United States, Canadian, and English reports, in the order named, the case last reported being put first ; that is to say, each series is ar- ranged in the inverse order of decision. This method pre- ents the cases relied upon in an orderly manner, bringing all the authorities in one state, or court, together in one place, and enables the practitioner to readily run through each note, to secure the citation he wants. This, it is thought, will materially facilitate the work of "running down" a subject, or preparing a brief. JAMES M. KEEE. September 34, 1895. TO JUDGE SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON. CONTENTS, BOOK I. INTRODUCTORY. CHAPTER I. PEELIMINARY. PAQE g 1. Property — Generally 1 § 2. Same — Classes of property 3 § 3. Same — Blackstone's definition^ — Exclusive ownership 3 § 4. Same — Austin's definition — Restricted property 5 § 5. Early history of property 6 § 6. Same — Evolution of private property 7 § 7. Right of property and hereditary patrimony 9 § 8. Sam&— Recognition of the right of private property 10 § 9. Same — Alienation and devise 11 § 10. Same— The retrait 13 § 11. Theories of the origin of private property in land 13 § 12. Same — 1. The discovery theory 13 § 13. Same — 2. The occupation theory 14 § 14. Same— 3. The labor theory 15 § 15. Same — 4. The theory of contract 15 §16. Same— 5. The Zea; theory 16 § 17. Same — 6. The natural-economic theory 16 § 18. Same — 7. The natural rights theory 17 § 19. Same — 8. The government-grant theory 18 § SO. Real and personal property — Distinction and devolution. ... 19 § 31. Definition of real property 30 § 32. Same — " Land " and " real estate " 31 § 23. Same — Maryland doctrine 33 §34. Same— Tenement 33 § 35. Same — Hereditaments S3 § S6. Same — Same — Division of hereditaments 24 ix X CONTENTS, CHAPTER II. WHAT IS REAL PROPERTY. PAGE § 37. GeneraUy 37 § 38. Things real become personalty by agreement 37 § 39. Church-pews — Definition , 38 § 30. Same — Assignment of pews 29 § 31. Same— Rights of pew-holders in pews— English doctrine 30 § 33. Same — Same — American doctrine 30 § 33. Same— Same — ^Limitation and qualification of property in pew 33 § 34. Same — Same — As to right of occupancy 33 § 35. Same — Law regulating 33 § 36. Same — Same — Episcopal church 34 § 37. Same — Same — Same — ^Vestry's control 34 § 38. Same — Same — Free church — Power of trustees 35 § 39. Same — Grant in perpetuity 35 § 40. Same — Interest of pew-holders in church edifice and lands . . 36 § 41. Same — Restrictions on use and treatment of pew 37 § 43. Same — Abandonment or sale of church edifice 38 g 43. Same — Changes and repaii-s 39 g 44. Burial lots 40 % 45. Corporate stocks and lands 43 § 46. Same — Realty held by corporation in trust when 43 § 47. Same — Land is real estate when 44 § 48. Same — Nature and object of investment 44 § 49. Electric poles and wires realty 45 § 50. Emblements — Crrowing crops. . . , 45 § 51. Same — When crop severed 47 § 53. Fee-farm lease 48 § 53. Pructus industriales 48 § 54. Same — Products of a mixed nature — Hops 53 § 55. Fructus naturales 53 § 56. Same — Growing trees 54 § 57. Same — Same — Overhanging trees 56 § 58. Same — Same — " Line trees." 57 § 59. Same — Cut trees 58 § 60. Ground-rent — Definition 58 § 61. Same — Nature and methods of creation 59 § 63. Same — Disposition of in case of intestacy 59 § 63. Heirlooms — Definition 60 § 64. Same — Not recognized in America 60 § 65. Houses and buildings 61 § 66. Same — Built by tenant 68 § 67. Same — Consent to erection 63 § 68. Same — Chamber or floor in building 63 § 69. Same — Same — Effect of destruction of building 66 CONTENTS. xi CHAPTER III. WHAT IS REAL PROFERTY— continued. PAGE § 70. Ice a part of the realty 68 g 71. Same — On navigable streams 68 § "Hi. Same — Same — Where title extends to the tliread of the stream 70 § 73. Same — On non-navigable streams 70 § 74. Same — On ponds — 1. " Great ponds" 70 § 75. Same — Same — 2. Mill-ponds 71 § 76. Same — On canals 73 § 77. Same — Appropriation of ice 73 § 78. Incorporeal hereditaments — Definition and nature 74 § 79. Land usually real estate 74 § 80. Same — Exceptions to the general rule 77 , § 81. Leasehold estate 77 § 82. Light and air 78 § 88. Manure — Real estate vphen 78 § 84. Same — Where made in other than agricultural pursuits. .. . 79 § 85. Same — Made on non-agricultural lands 80 § 86. Same — Agreement of parties respecting 81 § 87. Same — New Jersey and North Carolina doctrine 81 § 88. Same— English rule 83 § 89. Marketstalls 83 § 90. Mines and minerals 83 g 91. Same — Common-law doctrine 85 § 92. Same — Royal charters 85 § 98. Same— New York doctrine 80 § 94. Same — Pennsylvania doctrine 87 § 95. Same — Georgia doctrine 87 § 96. Same — California doctrine 87 § 97. Same — Severance and conveyance 88 § 98. Same — Reservation of mineral ores 89 § 99. Same — Surface support 91 § 100. Same — Same — Rights of grantee 92 § 101. Same — Same — When owner retains surface 93 § 102. Same — Same — ^Where owner grants surface and retains minerals 98 § 103. Money real estate when 94 § 104. Movables realty when 96 § 105. Railroads — Road-beds, rails, etc 96 § 106. Same — Foundations, columns, etc., of railroad 97 § 107. Same— Rolling stock 97 § 108. Sea-weed— Marine increment 98 §109. Same — ^When cast between high and low water-mark 99 § 110. Saw-mill, saw-dust, etc. , real estate when 99 § 111. Water real estate when 100 xii CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. FIXTURES. PAOB §113. Definition of fixture 103 § 113. What fixtures pass with the realty 103 § 114. Criteria for determining Ill § 115. Same — 1. Actual annexation 113 § 116. Same — Same — ^Manner of annexation and character of article 113 § 117. Same — 3. Appropriation to tlie use. 114 §118. Same — 3. Adaptation to the use 114 § 119. Same— 4. Policy of tlie law , 115 § 130. Same — 5. Intention of the parties 115 § 131. Same — Same — Permanency of attachment controlled by intent 117 §133. Kinds or classes of fixtures 118 § 133. Same — 1. Agricultural fixtures 118 § 134. Same — 3. Domestic fixtures — a. Useful fixtures. 119 § 135. Same — Same — b. Ornamental (^omestic fixtures 130 §136. Same — 3. Ecclesiastical fixtures 131 §137. Same— 4. Trade fixtures 131 § 138. Same— 5. Mixed fixtiires 133 § 139. Between wliom the qviestion of fixtures may arise 124 § 130. Same — 1. Assignee in bankruptcy or for benefit of credi- tors and others 135 § 131. Same — 3. Debtor and execution creditor 135 § 133. Same — 3. Executor and heir at law 136 § 133. Same — 4. Executor of tenant for life and remainderman. . . 137 § 134. Same — 5. Heir at law and devisee 138 § 133. Same — 6. Landlord and tenant 128 §136. Same — Same — Removal of fixtures by tenant 180 § 137. Same — Same — Renewal of lease without removal of fix- tures 131 § 138. Same — 7. Mortgagor and mortgagee 131 § 139. Same — 8. Personal representative and devisee 134 § 140. Same — 9. Tenants in common 134 § 141. Same — 10. Vendor and vendee 134 § 142. Same — Same — Gas-fixtures, chandeliers, etc 138 § 143. Same— Same — Fixtures annexed by one in possession under contract of purchase 139 § 144. Agreement in relation to fixtures 141 § 145. Same — Limitation of doctrine 143 § 146. Removal of fixtures 144 § 147. Same — Exceptions to the rule 146 CONTENTS. xiii BOOK II. TENURES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. PAGE § 148. English origin of our institutions 148 § 149. Same — English common and statute law 149 § 150. Teutonic origin and English institutions 149 § 151. Same — The feudal system 150 CHAPTER II. THE FEUDAL LAW. § 153. Sources of the English law 153 § 153. Origin of feudal government 153 §154. France and Clovis 153 § 155. Same — Riparian Franks 154 §156. Same — Theodosian Code 154 § 157. Same — Introduction of feuds 154 § 158. Same — Laws of Normandy , 155 § 159. Establishment of feudal tenures 156 § 160. Same — Origin and growth of feudal customs 157 § 161. Same — Military services 158 § 162. Same — The German comites 160 § 163. Same— Allodial tenures 163 § 164. Same — Consuetudines feudorem 163 § 165. Definition of feuds 163 § 166. Kinds of feuds — Proper and improper 163 § 167. Same — Ligium and non-ligiiim 164 § 168. Same — Feuduni antiquum and feudum novum 164 § 169. Same — Feudum ndbile and feudum dignitatis 164 § 170. Investiture of feuds 165 § 171. Same — Improper or symbolical vestiture 165 § 173. Same — Breve testatum, 166 § 173. Fealty— Oath of 166 § 174. Homage— Ceremony of 167 § 175. Duties of lord and vassal 167 §176. Feudal aids 168 § 177. Estate of vassal 168 § 178. Alienation of feuds 169 § 179. Same— Sub-infeudation 169 § 180. Estate of the lord 169 § 181. The lord's obligation on vassal's eviction 170 xiv CONTENTS. PAGK § 183. Descent of feuds 170 § 183. Same — Feudum talliatum ^'^^ % 184. Same — Distinguished from succession under Eoman law. . . 171 § 185. Investiture upon descent l'''^ § 186. Same— Kelevium 173 §187. Escheat of feuds 173 § 188. Forfeiture of feuds 173 § 189. Forfeiture of seigniory 173 § 190. Feudal jurisdiction 173 CHAPTER III. ANCIENT ENGLISH TENURES. § 191. Introduction of feuds 175 § 192. Doctrine that lands held of king 177 § 193. Consequences of establishment of feudal tenures 177 § 194. Same^-Effect on Bocland and Folcland 178 § 195. Nature of the tenures 178 § 196. Same — Escheat and forfeiture 179 § 197. Kinds of tenures 179 § 198. Same — Regarding free tenures 180 § 199. Villeinage and copyholds 183 § 200. Tenure in capite 184 § 301. Tenure de honore 184 § 302. Tenure by knight-service 185 § 203. Same — Duties imposed 185 § 304. Same — Scutagium 185 § 305. Same — Fruits of tenure by knight-service 186 § 206. Tenure by escuage 186 § 307. Tenures by grand serjeanty 186 § 308. Consequence of tenure 187 § 309. Statute Quia Emptores 187 § 310. Homage — Ceremony and importance of 188 § 811. Fealty — An incident of feudal tenure 188 § 212. Aids of the ancient English tenure 189 § 213. Reliefs — Sums paid on investiture 189 § 214. Primer seisin — Definition 190 §215. Wardship — Distinction between male and female wards. . . 190 § 316. Marriage — Male and female wards 193 §217. Abolition of military tenures 193 CHAPTER IV. TENURE IN THE UNITED STATES. § 218. Allodial tenures 194 § 319. Doctrine of tenure in the United States— Socage tenures. . . 195 CONTENTS. XV PAGE P 320. Same— Discovery foundation of title 196 § 221. Same — Indian titles 196 § 222. Right of eminent domain 197 § 233. Restriction as to use 198 § 224. Same— Foundation of doctrine 199 §225. Same— Application of maxim 200 BOOK III. COEPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. CHAPTER I. ESTATES IN GENERAL. g 236. Definition of estate 201 § 337. The origin of estates 304 § 328. Estate in land— Definition 205 § 329. Same— Division of 205 § 330. Freehold estate in lands — Definition , 205 § 231. Same — Qualities of freehold estate 306 § 333. Sam(v-Seisin 206 §233. Same— Entry 207 §334. Same— Livery of seisin 308 § 235. Same— Disseisin 309 § 336. Same — Same — Kinds of disseisin 209 § 237. Same — Same — What constitutes a disseisin 211 §338. Abatement— Effect of 212 § 239. Abeyance of freehold '. .. 313 § 340. Who may be freeholders 314 §241. Same— Aliens 216 § 243. Same — Same — Federal and state statutes 218 § 243. Same — Corporations 334 § 244. Division of estates 235 CHAPTER 11. ESTATES IN FEE-SIMPLE. § 245. Definition of fee 336 § 246. Definition of fee-simple 327 § 347. Qiiantum of estate in fee-simple 238 xvi CONTENTS. PAGE § 348. Same — Taken by corporation 2^8 § 349. Tenant in fee-simple — Definition 329 § 350. Words of limitation 329 § 251. Same— Bastard 330 § 252. Same — Informal and implied limitation 230 § 253. Same — Statutory words of limitation 381 § 254. Same — Executory limitation 231 § 255. Same — To corporations — " Successors" 331 § 256. Same — Restrictions on ecclesiastical corporations 333 § 257. . Kinds of fees 333 § 258. Inferior estates derived out of fee-simple 333 § 259. Abeyance of fee 233 § 260. Same — Land granted to pious uses 234 § 261. Same — Franchise of corporation 235 § 263. Same — Present doctrine as to abeyance of fees 335 CHAPTER III. INCIDENTS OF AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE. § 263. Introduction 238 § 264. Power of alienation 239 § 365. Same — Definition of alienation 239 § 266. Same — Kinds of alienations 240 § 267. Same — Same — Voluntary alienations 240 §268. Same — Same — Early histoiy of voluntary alienation 240 § 269. Same — Same — Under the feudal system 341 § 270. Same — Same — Burgage tenures 241 § 271. Same — Same — Alienation of purchased land 241 § 272. Same — Same — Gifts in maritagium 343 § 373. Same — Sub-inf eudations — Magna Charta. 343 § 374. Same — Tenants in capite 344 § 375. Same — Alienation in mortmain. . , 345 § 276. Same — Statute of Quia Emptores 245 § 277. Same — Involuntary alienation — Definition 346 § 378. Same — Same — Restrictions against, upheld when 347 § 379. Same — Same— Gifts to charitable uses 347 § 380. Same — Modes of alienation 348 § 281. Same — Same — 1. Alienation by deed 348 § 283. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by matters of record 348 § 383. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by devise 348 § 384. Same — General restraint of alienation 248 § 385. Same — Same — Exceptions to the general rule 350 § 286. Same — Same — Fee-farm estates 350 § 387. Same — Same — Ground-rent estate 251 § 288. Same — Same — Estates in fee-tail 253 § 289. Same — Same — Estate for life — English doctrine 253 § 390. Same — Same — Same — American doctrine 353 § 391. Same — Same— Reason for the Americal rule 354 CONTENTS. xvii CHAPTER IV. INCIDENTS OF AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE. PAGE § 293. Power of alienation — Estate for years 256 § 293. Same— Estates settled on feme covert 257 § 294. Same— Estates dedicated to charitable uses 257 § 295. Same — Conditions in conveyance 258 § 296. Same — Special restraints— Definition 258 § 297. Same— Same— Large's Case, 260 §298. Same— Same — Prohibiting alienation to particular persons.. 261 § 299. Same — Same — Restricting alienations to particular persons.. 261 § 300. Same — Same — Restricting alienation to family 262 §301. Same — Same — Restraining alienation for a particular time.. 268 § 302. Same — Same — Condition to do certain acts 265 § 303. Same — Same — Condition not to do certain acts 266 § 304. Same — Same — Restraints on estates of persons not sui juris, 269 § 305. Same — Same — Restraints on marriage 270 § 306. Same — Same — Restraints on second marriage 271 § 307. Same — Forfeiture — Fee-simple estate 271 §308. Same— Same— Life estate 272 § 309. Same — Same^Estate for years 274 § 810. Same— Curtesy 274 § 311. Same— Descent 274 § 312. Same — Power of devise — Saxon and Danish rule 275 § 313. Same — Same — Under the Normans and their successors. . . . 275 § 314. Same — Same — Reason for the common-law rule 276 § 315. Same — Same — American rule 277 §316. Same— Dower 277 § 317. Same— Forfeiture— English doctrine 277 § 318. Same — Same — American doctrine 277 § 319. Same — Liability for debts — Common-law doctrine 278 § 320. Same— Same — American doctrine 278 CHAPTER Y. CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATE BY DEED. § 321. Methods of creating fee-simple estates 280 § 322. Same — Common-law rule — Apt words 281 § 323. Same — Whole estate need not be conveyed 281 § 324. Same— Reservations 283 § 325. " Heirs ' cannot be supplied by any other word 283 § 326. Same — Must appear in operative part of deed 285 § 327. Same — Supplied by reference to other instruments 287 § 328. Same— Exceptions to the rule 288 § 329. Same — Same — Deeds in trust and equitable estates 289 § 330. Same — Same — Deed to corporations 290 §331. Same— Same— Deed to sovereign 290 2 xviii CONTENTS. PAGE § 333. Same— Abrogation of rule by statute 890 § 333. " Heii-s "—Definition 391 § 334. Same — Word of limitation, not of purchase 393 § 335. Same— Construed ' • children " when 393 § 336. Same — When to be ascertained 393 § 337. Same—" Present heirs " 393 § 338. Same—" Bodily heirs " or " heirs of the body " 294 CHAPTER VI. CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEVISE. § 339. Introductory 395 § 340. Statute of uses — Eflfeot of its passage 396 § 341. Same— Adopted in this country 397 § 343. Same — Rules of construction — Evading the statute 398 § 343. Same — Same — American rules of construction 398 § 344. Statute of wills — Effect on power to devise lands 300 § 345. Devise of land carried fee when — Common-law doctrine. . . 301 § 346. Same — Doctrine in American courts 303 § 347. Same— Precatory devise 303 § 348. Same — Rules for interpretation of deeds not applicable 303 § 349. Same— Words of limitation 304 § 350. Same — " Heirs " not necessary to pass fee 305 § 351. Same — What words carry a fee 306 § 353. Same — " Estate " is ge7ius generalissimum 311 § 353. Same — What passes fee in reversion 313 § 354. Same — "\7hen the fee vests 314 § 355. Same — ^Words of survivorship in will — Doctrine of early English cases 315 § 356. Same — Same — Doctrine of later English cases 316 § 357. Same — Same — Doctrine of the American cases 316 § 358. Same — Limited remainder — ^Vesting of 316 § 359. Same — Devise with power — Carries fee when 317 § 360. Same — Same — When fee does not pass 319 § 361. Same — Same — Same — Reason for the rule 319 § 363. Same — Devise with limitation over — Contingent fee 330 § 363. Same — Same — Limitation over void for uncertainty 331 § 364. Same — Same — Same — Fee in first taker 333 § 365. Same — Devise to a person and his children 334 § 366. Same— Same— What children included 335 § 367. Same — Residuary clause carries fee when 336 CHAPTER Vn. CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEYISi:,— continued. § 368. Enlargement of devise 327 § 369. Same — When estate not enlarged 338 CONTENTS. Xix PAGE § 370. Same — Intention of testator — Construction by comparison, 339 § 371. Same — Same — Reference to other devises in will 380 § 373. Same — Introductory clause 330 § 378. Same — Same — Words in intrductory clause enlarging estate to fee 833 § 374. Same— Conclusion of will— Intention of testator declared by, 334 § 375. Same — Where fee necessary to carry out intention of tes- tator 834 § 876. Same— Estates in trust 335 § 377. Same — Use devisee is to make of lands 336 § 378. Same — By implication — Control over land 337 § 379. Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule 339 § 380. Same — Where charge on devisee 339 § 381. Same — Same — Nature of charge on devisee 341 § 388. Same — Same — Reason for the doctrine 341 § 383. Same — Same — Failure or refusal to perform 343 § 384. Same — Where charge on the estate 343 § 385. Cutting down fee 344 § 386. Same — Fee not cut down when 345 § 387. Same — Doctrine of the American courts — Jackson v. Bull, 349 § 388. Same— Same— Doctrine of Smith v. Bell 351 § 389. Statutoi-y regulations 353 § 390. Construction of devises since the statutes 353 CHAPTER VIII. DESCENT OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATES. § 391. Introductory 354 § 393. Local or special customs^Control over descent 355 § 393. Same— Gavelkind 855 g 394. Same — Same — Where prevails 356 §395. Same— Borough-English 356 § 396. Same— Effect on right to take as heir 357 § 397. Same— Copyholds 857 § 398. Descent as affected by domicil 858 § 399. Descent at common law 359 § 400. Same — Seisin in law 359 § 401. Same — Same — Prevents abeyance of freehold, 359 § 403. Same— Seisin in deed 360 § 403. Same — Same— How acquired 360 § 404. Same — Distinction between seisin in law and in fact 361 § 405. Same— When entry not necessary to convert seisin in law into actual seisin 363 § 406. Common-law rules of descent 363 § 407. Same— First rule 863 g 408. Same— Same— Doctrine of possessio fratris 863 § 409. Same— Same— Same— Effect on dower and curtesy 864 g 410. Same— Second rule 365 XX CONTENTS. PAGE §411. Same— Third rule 365 § 412. Same— Fourth rule 365 § 413. Same— Fifth rule 365 § 414. Same— Sixth rule 366 §415. Same— Seventh rule 366 § 416. Same— Eighth rule 366 § 417. Same — Same — Feudal origin of primogeniture 367 8 418. Eules of descent in the United States 367 CHAPTER IX. DETERMINABLE FEES. § 419. Definition of determinable fees 370 § 420. Distinguished from fee-simple 371 § 421. Mode of limitation 371 § 422. Limitations creating a determinable fee 372 § 423. Kinds of determinable fees 373 § 424. Same— Direct limitation 373 § 425. Same — Collateral limitation 374 § 426. Converted into a fee-simple how 374 § 427. Determinable limitations and limitations upon condition — Distinction between 375 § 428. Alienation and devise of 876 § 429. Waste an incident of such estates 376 CHAPTER X. CONDITIONAL FEES. § 430. Introductory 377 § 431. Definition of conditional fee 377 § 432. Early history of conditional fees 378 § 483. Mode of limitation of conditional fees 378 § 434. Nature of heirs special 379 § 435. Statute X»e Bonis 380 § 436. In what sense limitation conditional 880 § 437. Descent of conditional fees 881 § 438. Executory devLse after fee conditional 382 CHAPTER XI. BASE FEES. § 439. Definition of base fee 884 § 440. Creation of base fees 385 § 441. Determinable conterminous with base fee 387 § 442. Merger of base fees 388 § 443. Descent of base fees 388 CONTENTS. xxi CHAPTER XII. QUALIFIED FEE-SIMPLE. PAGE § 444. Definition of qualified fee-simple 390 § 445. Power of tenant of qualified fee-simple over the estate 390 § 446. Qualified fee-simple distinguished from other fees 391 § 447. Objections to qualified fees-simple 391 § 448. The doctrine of Blake v. Hynes 393 § 449. Nature and mode of limitation 393 § 450. Course of descent of a qualified fee-simple estate 394 § 451. Alienation of qualified fee-simple 394 CHAPTER XIII. ESTATES IN TAIL. § 453. Definition of an estate-tail 395 § 453. "What construed an estate-tail 396 § 454. Distinguished from estates determinable 396 § 455. Origin of estate-tail 397 § 456. Same— Statute De Bonis 397 § 457. Same — Effect of construction 399 § 458. Attempt to defeat the statute De Bonis 400 § 459. Recognition in the United States.' 401 § 460. Kinds of tails 403 § 461. Same — General and special estates-tail 403 § 462. Same — Same — Limitation in tail special valid where 404 § 463. Same — Estates-tail male and female 404 § 464. Same — Estate in frank-marriage 405 § 465. Same — Fees-tail with conditional limitations 406 § 466. Same — Estates-tail after possibility 406 § 467. How estates-tail are created 407 § 468. Same — Words of procreation necessary 407 § 469. Same — Methods of creation — a. By deed 408 § 470. Same — Same — " Heir " nomen collectivum 409 § 471. Same — Same — b. By devise 410 § 473. Same — Same — Same — Words creating estate-tail 411 § 473. Same — Same — Same — Devise to several and survivors 413 §474. Same — Same — Same — Remainder over on failure of issue. . 414 § 475. Same — Same — Same — Effect of reversion on indefinite fail- ure 417 § 476. Same— Same — Same— Rule of construction 418 § 477. Same — Same — Same — Intention of testator 419 § 478. Same — Same — Same — Expressions which carry estate-tail. . 480 § 479. Same — Same— Same — Fee reduced by context 434 H 480. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Price v. Taylor 435 xxii CONTENTS. PAGE § 481. Same— Same— Same— Devise in tail not enlarged by impli- cation 42" § 482. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Wright v. Tliayer 427 § 483. Same — ^Words in frank-marriage sufficient _. 428 CHAPTER XIV. ESTATES IN 1AIL— continued. § 484. Rules relating to limitations creating estatesrtail 430 § 485. Of whom an estate in tail is held 432 § 486. "What property may be entailed 483 § 487. Same — What essential to an entailment 433 § 488. Same — Personalty not entailable 434 § 489. Same — Annuities not entailable 434 § 490. Same — Copyholds — Entailment by special custom 435 § 491. Same — Conditional fee-simple entailable 436 § 492. Same, — Freehold or chattel interest not entailable 436 § 493. Who may hold as tenant in tail 437 § 494. Remainder upon fee-tail 437 § 495. Heirs of donee in tail take by descent 437 § 496. Rule m Shelley's Case 438 § 497. Same — When rule prevails 438 § 498. Same — Where " heirs " deseriptio personarum 439 §499. Same— What within the rule 440 § 500. Same — Rule of construction and not of law 441 § 501. Same — Applied to estates in husband and wife 441 § 502. Incidents of an estate in tail 442 §503. Same — Power to commit waste 443 § 504. Same — Right to bar estate > 443 § 505. Same — Right to title-deeds— English rule 443 § 506. Same — Same — American rule 444 § 507. Same — Curtesy and dower 444 § 508. Same — Forfeiture for treason 444 § 509. Same — Incidents of fees which do not attach — Alienation . . 444 § 510. Same — Same — Duty to pay off incumbrances 445 § 511. Same— Same— Merger 446 § 512. Abolition and curtailment by statute 446 § 513. Same — Effect of abolishing estates-tail 447 § 514. Descent of estates-tail 448 § 515. Same — Successive descents 449 § 516. Same — Legislative change of descent. 450 CHAPTER XV. ALIENATION AND BARRING ESTATE-TAIL. § 517. Conditional fees 452 § 518. Same — Doctrine of the common law 452 'CONTENTS. XXiii PAGE § 519. Statute of "Westminster II.— Origin and effect 453 § 520. Same— Evils of the statute 453 § 531. Same — Evading the statute — Origin of fines and recoveries, 453 § 532. Ahenating estates-tail 454 § 523. Same — By issue in tail 455 § 534. Same — Meaning of statute 455 § 535. Same — Discontinuance 455 § 526. Same — Modes of discontinuance 455 § 527. Same — Effects of discontinuance 456 § 528. Same — When discontinuance not had 456 § 539. Same — Creates base fee vehen 457 § 530. Fines— Nature and kinds 457 § 531. Same — Common-law and statutory fines 458 § 533. Same — Fines in the United States 458 § 533. Common recovery — Definition 459 §534. Same— Nature of 459 § 535. Same — Statutory tenant of the prcecipe 459 § 536. Same — ^Form of proceedings 460 § 537. Same— Effect of 460 § 538. Same— In United States 461 § 539. Same — Against estate of creator of entail 461 § 540. Same — By vrrit ad quod damnum 462 § 541. Alienation by bargain and sale — Englisli doctrine 463 § 542. Same — Doctrine in United States 463 § 543. Same— Statutory bar by deed 464 § 544. Same — Formality of deed 465 § 545. Same — Conveyance of limited interests 466 §546. Same— Eecord of deed 466 §547. Same— By mortgage 466 § 548. Same— By partition 466 § 549. Same — By sale on execution 467 § 550. Same — By leases and releases 467 § 551. Statutory abolition and curtailment 468 § 553. Equitable estates-tail 473 CHAPTER XVI. ESTATES FOE LIFE. Section I. Nature and incidents of life estates. Section II. Duties incident to life estates, tenures, etc. Section III. Estate pur autre vie. Section TV. How estates for life created. Sectiok V. Emblements. Section VI. Estovers. Section VII. Waste. Section I. — Nature and Incidents of Life Estate. § 553. Introductory 475 § 554. Estate for life under feudal law 476 xxiv CONTENTS. PAGE § 555. Same— Term of grant— Formal words of instrument 476 § 556. Definition of a life estate 477 § 557. Estate for life a freehold 477 §558. What constitutes estate for life 478 § 559. Kinds of estates for life 479 §560. Estates for life of the tenant 479 § 561. Quasi-tenania for life— Ecclesiastical persons 480 § 562. Determinable estates for life 480 § 563. Same — Special occupant 481 § 564. Life estate by implication 481 § 565. Same— What creates life estates by implication 483 § 566. Same — Adding words of limitation 482 § 567. Same — Absurd and superfluous expressions 483 § 568. Same — Same — Reason for the rule 483 § 569. Tenancy by the curtesy, etc 484 § 570. The conditions attached to life estates 484 § 571. Same — Liability for debts of tenant 485 § 573. Enlargement of life estate to a fee 486 § 573. Same — Power of disposition by will 486 § 574. Nature of estate for life 488 § 575. Same — Possession of tenant possession of reversioner 488 § 576. Adverse title — Purchase by life tenant 490 § 577. Same— Not entailable 490 § 578. Rights and incidents of an estate for life — 1. Right to pos- session and products 490 § 579. Same — Same — Right to possession of title-deeds 491 § 580. Same — 3. Right to recover damages 492 § 581. Same — Same — Rules for valuation of life estate 498 § 583. Same — 3. Right to estovers, etc 494 § 583. Same — 4. Right to work mines, quarries, etc 494 § 584. Same — Same — Right to open new mines, pits, and shafts. . . 494 § 585. Same — Same — Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining Co 495 § 586. Same — 5. Right to lease 496 § 587. Same — 6. Right to rents and profits 497 § 588. Same — Same — Apportionment of rent 497 § 589. Same — 7. Right to protection against sudden determina- tion of estate 498 § 590. Same — 8. Right of alienation 499 § 591. Same — Same — Restraint on alienation 499 § 593. Same — Same — Same — Active trust — Pennsylvania doctrine, 500 §593. Same — Same — Same — Withdrawing estate from creditors . . 501 § 594. Same — Same — Must be made by deed 501 § 595. Same — Same — How great an estate may be conveyed by life tenant ." 501 § 596. Same — Same — Passesby assignment for benefit of creditors. 502 Section II.— Duties Incident to Life Estates, Tenures, etc. § 597. Duties of tenants of life estates — 1. To defend title — Pray- ing in aid : goa CONTENTS. X2V PAGE § 598. Same — 3. To pay taxes — a. Ordinary taxes 504 § 599. Same— Same— b. Betterments 505 §600. Same— 3. To make repairs 506 § 601. Same — Same — Exception to the rule 506 §603. Same— 4. To keep down interest 508 § 603. Sajne — Same — Former rule 510 § 604. Same — Same — Rule as to widows • 510 § 605. Same — 5. To pay incumbrances 511 § 606. Same — Same — Apportionment of incumbrances 511 § 607. Same — Same — Same — Rule wliere widow the life tenant. . . 513 § 608. Same— 6. To insure 513 § 609. Tenure of estate for life 513 § 610. Permanent improvements — Rights of parties 514 § 611. Same — Exceptions to the rule 514 § 613. Partition by tenant for life 515 § 613. Forfeiture of life estates 515 § 614. Same — 1. By conveying in fee 516 § 615. Same — 3. By adverse possession , 517 §616. Same— 3. By waste 518 § 617. Valuation of life estate 518 § 618. Same— English rule 518 § 619. Same — American rule 519 § 630. Merger of life estates 530 § 631. Same — Estates pur autre vie 531 § 633. Termination of life estate 531 § 633. Same — Exception to the rule 531 § 634. Same — Presumption of death 533 Section III.— Estates Pue Adtre Vie. § 635. Definition of the estate 523 § 636. Quantum of the estate 534 § 637. Nature of interest in the estate 534 § 628. Methods by which estate created 535 § 639. Rights of tenants — Alienation, devise, and entail 525 § 630. Same— Right to estovers 526 § 631. Occupancy — 1. Corporeal hereditaments— a. General oc- cupancy 526 § 633. Same— Same— Same— Abolition by statute 536 § 633. Same— Same— b. Special occupancy 537 § 634. Same— Same— Same— Who may be special occupants 538 § 635. Same — 3. Incorporeal hereditaments 538 § 636. Termination of estate 539 Section TV.- How Estates foe Life Cebated. § 637. Conventional and legal estates 539 § 638. Estates for life by implication 530 §639. Creation by deed 530 § 640. Same— Words of limitation 531 xxvi CONTENTS. PAGE §641. Same— What creates life estate 533 § 642. Created by devise 533 § 643. Same — Words which carry life estate 533 § 644. Same — Same — Raised by implication 584 § 645. Same^-Enlarging estate to a fee 535 § 646. Same — Same — Devise with power of disposition 535 § 647. Same — Same — Words in preamble 536 Section V.— Emblements. § 648. Definition of emblements 537 § 649. Life tenant entitled to 537 § 650. Crop must be planted by tenant 538 § 651. Where estate determined by tenant 538 § 653. Ingress, egress, and regress 539 Section VI.— Estovers. § 653. Definition of estovers 540 § 654. Kinds of estovers 540 § 655. Life tenant entitled to 541 § 656. Same — Where tenant a widow 541 § 657. What may be taken — Effect of exceeding right 542 § 658. Same — English and American doctrines 543 §659. When to be taken 544 § 660. For what purposes taken 544 §661. Where to be taken from 546 § 663. Where to be used 546 § 663. Common of estovers 547 Section VII. — Waste. § 664. Definition 549 § 665. What constitutes waste 549 § 666. Same — Exceptions to the rule 550 § 667. Kinds of waste 550 § 668. Same — Voluntary waste 550 § 669. Same — Permissive waste 550 §670. Liability of life tenant for waste — Common-law doctrine. . . 551 § 671. Same — American doctrine 553 § 673. Same — Acts of strangers 553 § 673. Same — Tenants in dower and curtesy 554 § 674. Same — Same — Permissive waste 554 § 675. Kinds of lands subject to waste 554 § 676. Acts constituting waste — General rule 555 § 677. Same— 1. Felling timber— General rule 557 § 678. Same — Same — Amount to be taken 557 § 679. Same — Same — Particular kinds of trees 559 § 680. Same — Same— Local custom as to timber trees 559 § 681. Same — Same — Timber improperly cut — Property in 560 § 683. Same — 3. Opening mines 561 CONTENTS. XXvii PAGE § 683. Same — 3. In respect to building — Pulling down houses 562 g 68 1. Same — Same — Dilapidations 563 § 685. Same — Same — Alterations 564 § 686. Same — Same — Erection of new buildings , 565 § 687. Same — 4. Changing course of husbandr}' 565 § 688. Same — Same — Permitting land to become foul 566 § 689. Same — 5. Destruction of heirlooms 567 § 690. Partial powers to commit waste 567 § 691. Waste by ecclesiastics 567 § 692. Destruction by fire 567 § 693. Without impeachment of waste 568 § 694. Remedies for waste — 1. Writ of estrepement and writ of waste 569 § 695. Same— 2. Injunction 570 § 696. Same — Same — Character of the remedy 571 § 697. Same— Same— When granted 573 § 698. Same — Same — Same — Threat to commit waste 573 § 699. Same — Same — Same — Permissive waste 573 §700. Same— Same— Privity of title 573 § 701. Same — Same — In favor of whom granted 57."> § 703. Same — Same — Against whom granted 5T5 § 703. Same — Same — Bill for accounting 577 § 704. Same— 3. Forfeiture of estate 577 CHAPTER XVII. ESTATE BY CURTESY. Section I. Origin and requisites. Section II. Nature, incidents, and duties. Section III. Barring curtesy. Section IV. Curtesy under statute. Section V. Who may be tenants by curtes3^ Section VI. What property subject to curtesy. Section VII. What property not subject to curtesy. Section I. — Origin and Requisities. § 705. Estate by curtesy— Introduction 580 § 706. Definition of estate by curtesy 580 § 707. Origin of estate by the curtesy— Lord Littleton's view 581 § 708. Same— Early origin of the estate 582 § 709. Same— Adopted from northern nations 583 §710. Curtesy in England 584 § 711. Same— Curtesy in gavelkind lands 584 § 712. Curtesy in the United States 584 § 713. Same — Under married women's acts 587 § 714. Kinds of curtesy 588 § 715. Same — 1. Curtesy initiate 589 8 716. Same — 3. Curtesy consummate 591 xxviii CONTENTS.. PAGE Same — 3. Equitable curtesy 593 Common-law requisites of curtesy 592 Same — 1. Lawful marriage 593 Same— Same — Lex loci governs 594 Same — Same — Celebration of marriage 595 Same — Same — Void and voidable mai-riage 597 Same — 3.- Seisin of wife 597 Same — Same — What seisin is sufficient 599 Same — Same — Seisin in fact or in deed 600 Same — Same — Same — ^Exceptions to the rule 601 Same — Same — Seisin in law 603 Same — Same — Same — Reason for relaxing rule 604 Same — Same — Same — Extent to which rule relaxed 604 Same — Same — Seizure by descent cast 605 Same — Same — Seized at time of death 606 Same — Same — Possession by coparcener 606 Same — Same — Possession by co-tenant 606 Same — Same — Possession by wife's tenant 607 Same — Same — Same — Lease for life before marriage 609 Same — Same — Same — Receiving rents and profits 609 Same — Same — Possession by husband — Kentucky doctrine, 609 Same — Same — Possession by husband's grantee 610 S^ime — Same — Seisin of guardian 610 Same — Same — Equitable title and seisin 610 Same — Same — Same — Exception to the rule 611 Same — Same — Actual entrj^ 613 Same — Same — Same — Wild, waste, and uncultivated lands, 613 Same — Same — Time of seisin 614 Same — Same — Adverse possession 614 Same — Same — Remainder and reversion 614 Same — 3. Issue of marriage 616 Same — Same — Change of rule by statute 616 Same — Same — a. Bom alive 617 Same — Same — Same — Degree of development and vitality, 618 Same — Same — Same — Death of issue 619 Same — Same — b. In lifetime of wife 620 Same — Same — c. Be capable of inheriting 620 Same — Same — Same — Seisin by wife 631 Same — Same — Same — Estate devised to wife and heirs 621 Same — Same — Same— Gives second husband curtesy 631 Same — Same — Same — Wife's attainder 623 Same — Same — d. Essentials need not coincide in point of time 623 Same — 4. Death of wife 624 Same — Same — Civil death and bigamy of wife 634 Section II.— Nature, Incidents, and Duties. Nature of estate by the curtesy 636 Same — Tenure , 636 S717. S718. § 719. §720. § 731. §733. §733. §724. § 725. §726. § 727. § 728. §729. §730. §731. §732. § 733. § 734. §735. §736. §737. § 738. § 739. §740. §741. § 742. § 743. §744. §745. §746. §747. §748. § 749. §750. § 751. §752. §753. § 754. § 755. § 756. § 757. § 758. §759. §760. § 761. § 762. § 763. g 764. § 765. § 766. § 767. § 768. S 769. § 770. § 771. § 772. g 773. § 774. § 775. § 776. S 777. § 778. § 779. § 780. § 781. § 782. § 783. § 784. § 785. 786. § 787. § 788. § 789. § 790. § 791. 793. g 793. § 794. § 795. § 796. § 797. S 798. § 799. S 800. 801. S 803. § 803. 804. § 805. S 806. § 807. CONTENTS. xxix PAGE Same — Same — At common law 637 Same — Same — Continuation of wife's estate 637 Same — Has character of title by descent, 637 Same — When estate attaches 628 Same— Same — Disclaimer 628 Same — Same — Action by husband to recover 629 Same — Same — Suspends descent 639 Same — Suspends statute of limitation 639 Same — Proceeds of judicial sale — Curtesy in 630 Same— Insurable interest 631 Incidents of curtesy — Genei-ally 633 Same — 1. Eight to sell or lease 633 Same — 2. Subject to the debts of the wife 634 Same — 3. Subject to debts of tenant 634 Same — Same — Wife's right as creditor against curtesy 636 Same — Same — Curtesy initiate 686 Same— Same — Same — Under statute subjecting " any estate held by debtor " 637 Same — Same — Under recent American statutes 638 Same — 4. Emblements — Tenant by curtesy entitled to 639 Same — 5. Improvements — No allowance to tenant for 639 Same — 6. Waste by tenant by curtesy 639 Same — Same — LiabiUty of assignee 640 Same— 7. Partition 640 Same — 8. Power to sell, assign, or lease 641 Same — Same — Effect of subsequent divorce 643 Same — 9. Suits with i-ef erence to 648 Same — Same — Damages to reversion G43 Duties of tenant by curtesy 643 Section III. — Baering Cuetest. Barring curtesy — By agreement of parties 645 Same — By attainder of wife 648 Same — By divesture of wife on breach of covenant 648 Same — By judicial proceedings under statute 649 Same — By consent of husband to wife's will 600 Same — By statute of limitations 651 Same— By statutory enactment 651 Same— Bj' husband's conveyance 651 Same— Same— In lands purchased with proceeds 632 Same— By fine and recovery 653 Same— By conveyance by wife during coverture 653 Same— By settlement in trust 653 Same — By instrument creating equitable estate 054 Same— Same— Provisions excluding curtesy £54 Same — By separate use for wife C5G Same— Not by will or deed of grantor C"0 Same — Not by will of wife C57 Same— Not by decree enjoining husband 657 XXX CONTENTS. PAGE § 809. Same — Not by attainder of wife after issue 658 § 810. Same — Not by ante-nuptial deed 658 § 811. Same — Not by ante-nuptial gift 658 § 812. Same — Not by abandonment of possession to co-tenant in common 659 §813. Forfeiture— By alienage 659 § 814. Same — By decree of divorce 660 § 815. Same — Same — 1. Decree of nullity 660 § 816. Same — Same — 2. Decree nisi 661 § 817. Same — Same — 3. A vinculo 661 § 818. Same — Same — Same — At suit of wife 662 § 819. Same — Same — Same — At suit of husband 663 § 820. Same — Same — Same — Rights of third persons 663 § 821. Same— Same— 4. A mensa 663 §822. Same— By adultery 664 § 823. Same — By abandonment of wife 664 § 824. Same — By failure to provide 665 §825. Same— By bigamy 665 § 826. Same — By wrongful alienation 665 § 827. Same — By attainder of husband of treason or felony 666 Section IV.- Ccetest undeh Statute. § 828. Statutes— Generally. 666 § 829. Same — Construction of statutes 668 § 830. Same — Married women's acts 669 § 831. Same — Effect of statute — On curtesy initiate 670 § 832. Same — Same — On curtesy consummate 672 Section V. — Who Mat be Tenants by the Curtesy. § 883. Tenants by the curtesy — Generally 672 § 834. Same — Alienage 672 § 835. Same — Same — Naturalization 673 § 836. Same — Attainder of treason or felony 674 Section VI. — ^What Property Subject to Curtesy. § 837. Ancient rule 675 § 838. At common law 675 § 839. In estates-tail 676 § 840. Same — On failure of issue 676 § 841. Same — In this country 677 g 842. In separate estate — At common law 677 § 843. Same — ^Under statute 678 g 844. In equitable estates of inheritance 679 § 845. Same — Intention of grantor 680 CONTENTS. xxxi PAGE § 846. In estate of former husband 681 § 847. In lands recovered 681 § 848. In lands deed to which is taken in wife's name 681 § 849. In lands of which wife seized by direct gift 682 § 850. In lands conveyed to wife by husband 683 § 851. In lands conveyed to trustee — By husband 683 § 853. Same— By the wife 683 § 853. Same— By third party 683 § 854. Same — Same — Express exclusion of husband 684 § 855. In lands held by guardian 685 § 856. In wild lands 685 § 857. In lands cast by descent 686 § 858. In lands devised in trust 686 § 859. In lands of beneficiary under will 687 § 860. In mortgaged estate 688 § 861. In trust estate 6-i9 § 863. In fees with conditional limitation 6S9 § 863. In fees determinable 690 § 864. In estate in remainder 693 § 865. In estate in reversion 693 § 866. In lands held in joint tenancy 693 § 867. In estates in coparcenary 694 § 868. In merged estates 694 § 869. In money when 694 § 870. In incorporeal hereditaments 695 Section VII. — ^What Pbopekty not Subject to Curtesy. § 871. Introduction 696 § 873. Estates not of inheritance 696 § 873. Life estates 697 § 874. Separate estate when 697 g 875. Same— WiU of grantor 698 § 876. Same — ^With resei'vation in 698 § 877. Same— Settlement by husband 699 § 878. Estates held as trustee 699 § 879. Pre-emption claim 700 § 880. Land assigned for dower 700 § 881. Estates held in joint tenancy 700 § 8S3. Determinable fees '■ 700 § 883. In proceeds of land 701 § 884. Lands of former husband 701 § 885. Lands sold before marriage 701 § 886. Adverse possession and bar of statute 703 § 887. In lands mortgaged to wife 703 g 888. In remainder and reversion 703 Section n. Section III. Section IV. Section V. Section YI. Section VII. Section vin. XYxij CONTENTS. CHAPTER XVIII. DOWER ESTATE. Section I. Origin, history, and kinds of dower. Nature and incidents of dower. Requisites of dower. Wlio may be endowed. Wliat property and estates subject to dower. "What property and estates not subject to dower. Assignment of dower. Detention and recovery of dowei- — Actions affecting. Section IX. Barring dower. Section X. Provisions in lieu of dower — Election. Section I, — Origin, History, and Kinds op Dower. PAGE § 889. Inti-oductory 704 § 890. Origin of dower 705 § 891. Same — German origin 707 § 893. Definition of dower 707 § 893. Favored in law 708 §894. Kinds of dower 709 § 895. Same — 1. Dower by custom 709 § 896. Same — 2. Dower ad ostium ecclesioe 710 § 897. Same — 3. Dower ex assensus patris 710 § 898. Same — 4. Dower de la plus belle 710 § 899. Same — 5. Dower at common law 710 §900. Dower in the United States 711 § 901. Dower under statute 711 § 902. Stages of dower 713 Section II. — Nature and Incidents of Dower. §903. Nature of dower 714 § 904. Object of dower 715 § 905. When dower vests 71 5 § 996. Interest of wife in dower 715 § 907. Same — Rights before assignment 716 K 908. Same — Rights after assignment 718 § 909. Law governing dower 719 § 910. Same — As to place 719 § 911. Same — As to time 721 § 912. Same — Where law changed during coverture 722 g 913. Incidents of dower , 723 S 914. Same — 1. Inchoate dower 725 § 915. Same — 3. Consummate dower 781 CONTENTS. xxxiii PAGE §916. Same— Same— Right of quarantine 736 § 917. Same— 3. Assigned dower 737 § 91 8. Same— Same— Right of alienation 739 § 919. Same — Same — Duties imposed on 739 § 920. Same— Same— Liability for debts of widow 741 S 921. Same— Same— Subject to waste 742 § 922. Same—Same— Subject to forfeiture 743 g 923. Priority of dower 744 § 924. Revival of dower rights 745 § 925. Valuation of dower interest 745 Section III. — Requisites op Doweh. § 926. Legal dower— Generally 748 § 927. Same— 1. Marriage— Must be legal 750 § 928. Same — Same — Void and voidable marriage 755 § 929. Same — Same — Proof of marriage 757 § 930. Same— 2. Seisin of husband 759 § 931. Same — Same — What a sufficient seisin 763 g 932. Same — Same — Character of seisin 763 § 933. Same — Same — Duration of seisin 765 § 934. Same — Same — Evidences of seisin 766 § 935. Same— 3. Death of husband 767 §936. Same— Same— Proof of death 767 § 937. Equitable dower 767 Section IV. — Who May be Endowed. § 938. Introduction 768 § 939. Second marriage — Spouse living 769 § 940. Divorced wife 770 § 941. Abandonment and adultery 773 § 942. Alienage 774 § 943. Same — Naturalization 775 Section V. — What Property and Estates Subject to Dower. § 944. GeneraUy 776 § 945. Base and qualified fees 779 § 946. Determinable fees 780 § 947. Equitable estates 781 § 948. Equity of redemption 782 § 949. Estates for life— Pur autre vie 784 § 950. Estates for years 784 § 951. Estates in common 785 § 952. Estates in copartnership 785 § 953. Estates in expectancy 787 § 954. Estates in joint tenancy 787 p 955. Estates in tail 787 § 956. Estates in trust 788 3 xxxiv CONTENTS. PAGE § 957. Estates subject to conditions '''88 § 958. Growing crops TOS § 959. Improvements — By liusband and lieir 789 § 960. Incorporeal hereditaments 790 § 961. Lands aliened during coverture 790 § 963. Lands conveyed in fraud of ci'editors 793 § 963. Lands conveyed in fraud of dower 794 § 964. Lands dedicated to public use 796 , § 965. Lands exchanged 797 § 966. Lands held as dower 797 § 967. Lands held by incomplete title 798 § 968. Lands mortgaged — Mortgagor's wife 799 § 969. Same — Same — Redeemed by husband or representatives. . 801 § 970. Same— Mortgagee's wife 803 § 971. Lands not fully paid for 803 § 973. Lands redeemed 805 § 973. Lands sold by an assignee 806 § 974. Lands wild and uncultivated 806 § 975. Merged estates 807 § 976. Mines, mineral lands, and quarries 811 § 977. Money 813 § 978. Kents and profits 814 § 979. Reversions and remainders 815 § 980. Shares of corporation 816 § 981. Surplus proceeds of land 817 Section VI. — What Peofeety and Estates not Subject to Dower. § 982. Introductory 819 § 983. Improvements 832 § 984. Estates for years 833 § 985. Estates in joint tenancy 823 § 986. Estates in copartnership , 824 § 987. Estates in reversion and remainder , 825 § 988. Estates mortgaged 836 § 989. Estates in tail 837 § 990. Equitable estates 837 § 991. Lands condemned for public use 828 § 993. Lands given to public use 828 § 993. Momentary and transitory seisin 839 § 994. Pre-emption claims 830 § 995. Trust estates 831 § 996. Vendor's lien 832 § 997. Wild and uncultivated lands 833 § 998. Wrongful estatps 833 Section VII. — Assignment of Dowek. § 999. Necessity for assignment 834 g 1000. When right to assignment accrues 835 CONTENTS. XXXV PAGE § 1001. Demand of assignment 835 § 1002. Widow's quarantine 835 § 1003. Right of dower— Cliaraoter 888 § 1004. Same— Right of alienation 838 § 1005. When dower assigned 839 § 1006. Same— Contribution to redemption 840 § 1007. Estimating value of dower 840 § 1008. In improvements 848 §1009. Rents and profits 844 § 1010. In property not devisable 845 § 1011. In aliened lands 845 § 1013. In partitioned lands 846 § 1013. In crops growing on land 846 § 1014. How dower assigned — Generally 847 § 1015. Same — Manner of assignment 848 § 1016. Same — Same — According to the common right 849 § 1017. Same — ^Rules governing 849 § 1018. Same — ^Law governing 850 § 1019. Same — Estate granted 851 § 1020. Same — Assignment by parol 851 § 1021. Same — According to common right 852 § 1022. Same — Same — Assignment in special manner 853 § 1028. Game — Against common right 854 §1024. By metes and bounds 854 § 1025. Same — Assignments in several parcels 856 § 1026. Same— Same— Where held in severalty 856 §1027. Same— In common 857 §1028. Same— Inmoney 857 § 1029. Same — Improper assignment 858 § 1080. Same — Failure of assignment 859 § 1031. Same — Re-assignment 860 § 1032. Who may make assignment of dower 861 § 1038. Effect of assignment of dower 862 Section VIII. — Detention and Recovery of Dower — Actions Affecting. § 1034. Action to recover dower 864 § 1035. Same — Writ of dower under nihil habet 865 §1086. Same— Suit in equity 866 § 1037. Same — Pleading and practice 867 § 1038. Same— Same— Demand 867 § 1039. Same — Same — Where action to be brought 869 § 1040. Same— Same— Against whom action brought 869 § 1041. Same — Same — Abatement of action 870 §1042. Same— Same— Estoppel 870 § 1048. Same— Same— Statute of Umitations 870 § 1044. Same— Same— Allowance of rents and profits 873 § 1045. Same— Same— Assignment of mortgaged lands 873 Xxxvi CONTENTS. PAGE § 1046. Same — Same — Valuation of dower interest 8~4 § 1047. Same^Same — Damages for detention 874 § 1048. Same— Same— Judgment 870 § 1049. Same— Same— Same— Form of 877 § 1050. Same — Same — Assignment 877 §1051. Same — Same — Same — Writ of assignment — Return 878 §1053. Same— Same— Costs 878 § 1053. Suits affecting dower 878 Section IX. — Baeeing Dowee. § 1054. Methods of barring dower 880 § 1055. Abandonment of husband not a bar to dower 891 § 1056. Act of liusband bars dower when 893 § 1057. Act of Legislature may bar dower 893 § 1058. Adultery of wife bars dower 894 § 1059. Agreement for voluntary separation bars dower 895 § 1060. Ante-nuptial contract bars dower 897 § 1061. Conveyance and release bar dower 899 § 1063. Same— Execution by wife 901 § 1063. Same — Acknowledgment by wife 903 § 1064. Same — Same — Defective acknowledgment — Curative stat- utes 904 § 1065. Same— Where wife an infant 905 § 1066. Same — Defeating conveyance by paramount title, etc. — Effect 905 §1067. Same— Power of release 907 §1068. Same— Mode of release 907 § 1069. Same — Consideration to support release 910 § 1070. Same — To whom release may be made 910 §1071. Same— Effect of release 910 § 1073. Same— Evidence of release 911 § 1073. Same — Constraction of release 913 § 1074. Conveyance by husband — Bars dower when 913 § 1075. Conveyance in fraud of creditors — ^Effect of dower 914 § 1076. Devise in lieu of dower— Effect of 915 § 1077. Divorce bars dower 919 § 1078. Abandonment and adultery as bar to dower 931 § 1079. Eminent domain — Exercising power of, bars dower 931 § 1080. Enforcement of mechanic's lien does not bar dower 933 § 1081. Estoppel in pais bars dower 933 § 1083. Foreclosure as a bar to dower 924 § 1083. Jointure bars dower 936 § 1084. Judicial sale for debts as a bar to dower 936 § 1085. Mortgage as a bar to dower 928 § 1086. Provision in lieu of, bars dower 939 § 1087. Settlement during coverture as a bar to dower 939 § 1088. Statute of limitations as a bar of dower 930 § 1089. Statutory provisions in lieu of, bars dower 931 § 1090. Waste bars dower 931 CONTENTS. XXXvii Section X.— Provisions in Ijeu of Dower— Election. PAGE § 1091. Introductory 933 g 1093. Effect of provision in lieu of dower 933 § 1093. Settlement in lieu of dower 933 § 1094. Same — Annuity — Calculation of 934 g 1095. Testamentary provisions in lieu of dower 935 § 1096. Same — Incidents of a bequest in lieu of dower 936 § 1097. Acceptance by the widow 937 § 1098. Failure of provision in lieu of dower 938 § 1099. Forfeiture of provision in lieu of dower 939 § 1100. Election — In case of exchanged lands , 939 § 1101. Same — Of provision in lieu of dower 940 § 1102. Same — Right of election a personal one 941 § 1103. Same — When election necessary 942 § 1104. Same — When election not necessary 945 § 1105. Same — What constitutes an election 945 § 1106. Same — Retraction of election 948 §1107. Same— Effect of an election 949 CHAPTER XIX. JOINTURE. § 1108. Definition 950 § 1109. Origin and history 951 § 1110. Kinds of jointure — 1. Legal jointure 951 § 1111. Same— 2. Equitable jointure 953 § 1112. Requisites of jointure 953 § 1113. Effect of jointure— Bars dower 957 § 1114. Who may limit a jointure 958 § 1115. Who may take a jointure 958 § 1116. Nature of jointure — Not continuation of husband's estate.. 9.59 § 1117. When made — 1. Before marriage 959 §1118. Same— 2. After marriage 960 § 1119. Howmade 960 § 1120. Election 963 § 1121. Entry 963 § 1123. Favored in equity 963 § 1133. As affected by the statute of uses — Statute in United States 964 §1124. Bar and forfeiture 964 § 1125. Eviction — Endowment in remainder 966 § 1126. Waste 967 XXXviii CONTENTS. CHAPTER XX. ESTATES FOR YEAES. Section I. Section II. Section III. Section IV. Section V. Section VI. Section VII. Section VIII. Section IX. Section X. Section XI. Section XII. Section XITI. Origin and nature of estates for years. How estates for years created. The lease. The lease — The conditions. Tlie lease — The covenants. The lease — Assignment and subletting. The lease — Termination, holding over. Forfeiture, surrender, and merger. Eviction, destruction, and use of premises. Fixtures, alterations, improvements, and repairs. Incidents. Letting on shares. Descent. Section I. — Origin and Nature of Estates for Years. PAGE § 1127. Definition 968 § 1128. The term 970 § 1129. Same — To begin in futuro 970 § 1130. Early tenure 971 § 1131. Distinguished from freehold estates 973 § 1132. Origin of estates for years 973 § 1133. How estate for years created 973 § 1134. Tenure of estate for years 973 § 1135. Nature of an estate for years 973 § 1136. Same — Freehold qualities by statute 976 § 1137. No seisin in tenant for years 977 § 1138. Jnteresse termini 978 §1139. Enti-y by tenant for years 978 § 1140. Liability for rent before entry, 979 § 1141. Estate may be assigned before entry 979 Section II. — How Estates for Yeaes Created. § 1142. By lease and devise 980 § 1148. Character of the estate — A chattel interest 981 § 1144. Reservation of rent 981 § 1145. What may be leased 983 § 1146. Who may be lessors 985 § 1147. Who may be lessees 987 § 1148. Possession by lessee — Effects of 988 § 1149. Landlord and tenant — Consequences of relation of 988 § 1150. Tenure of estate and privity of parties 989 CONTENTS. xsxix Section III.— The Lease. PAGE § 1151. Defiuition 99O § 1158. Lease and agreement to lease 991 § 1153. Lease as affected by statute of frauds 994 § 1154. Same — Parol lease to commence infuturo 997 § 1155. Same — Memorandum in writing 998 § 1156. Proper words to create a lease 1001 § 1157. Form of instrument 1003 § 1158. Must be for fixed term 1002 § 1159. Same— Length term may run 1003 § 1160. Same — Computing time 1005 § 1161. Same — Same— Optional number of years 1007 § 1162. Same — Renewable forever 1008 § 1168. Rent reserved 1010 § 1164. Parol lease ; 1010 § 1165. What lease embraces 1014 § 1166. Same —On demise of part of premises 1015 § 1167. Acceptance of lease 1016 § 1168. Entry— Statute of uses 1016 § 1169. Same — Effect of execution and delivery without 1017 § 1170. When lease takes effect 1017 § 1171. Who may make a lease 1017 § 1172. Same— By agents 1018 § 1173. Same— Corporation 1018 § 1174. Same — Executors and administrators 1020 § 1175. Same — Guardian 1021 § 1176. Same— Husband and wife ; 1024 § 1177. Same — Joint tenants and tenants in common 1026 § 1178. Same— Mortgagor 1027 § 1179. Same— Mortgagee 1028 § 1180. Same — Municipal corporations 1028 § 1181. Same— Partners 1029 § 1182. Same — Persons under disability — 1. Infants 1080 § 1183. Same— Same— 2. Lunatics 1032 § 1184. Same— Same— 8. Married women 1034 § 1185. Same— Pubhc officers 1035 § 1186. Same— Receivers 1036 § 1187. Same— Trustees 1036 § 1188. Same— Under powers 1038 § 1189. Lessors exceeding power 1040 § 1190. Ratification of leases 1041 § 1191. Signing lease 1042 § 1192. Same — Mode of signing by agent 1043 § 1193. SeaUng instrument— Effect 1044 § 1194. Fraud in procuring the execution of lease 1045 § 1195. Recording lease 1046 § 1196. Presumption of lease 1047 8 1197. Construction of lease 1048 xl CONTENTS. Section IV. — The Lease — The Conditions. PAGE § 1198. Introductory 1049 § 1199. What conditions may be imposed 1050 § 1200. Same — Privilege of renewing lease 1053 § 1301. Same — Privilege of purchasing premises 1053 § 1303. Same — Privilege of terminating by sale 1053 § 1303. Implied conditions — Furnished house 1054 § 1304. Breach of condition — Involuntary act 105(5 § 1305. Same — License to break. 1057 § 1306. Same— Entry for 1058 §1307. Same— Demand 1059 § 1308. Same— Same— For what made 1081 § 1309. Same— Same— Waiver of 1063 Section V. — The Lea.se — The Covenants, § 1310. Definition— How created 1063 § 1311. Kinds of covenants 1063 § 1313. Same — Express and implied covenants 1065 § 1313. Same — Implied covenants of lessor 1065 § 1314. Same— Same— Effect of 1067 § 1315. Same— Implied covenant of lessee 1067 § 1316. Same — Distinction between express and implied covenants, 1068 § 1317. Same — Real and personal covenants 1069 § 1318. Covenants running with the land — ^When covenants run with land 1070 § 1319. Same — Covenants running with part of the land 1071 § 1330. Same — What covenants run with the land 1074 § 1331. Same — Rights of assignee under '. 1076 § 1333. Same— When assignee bound 1078 § 1333. Covenants usually inserted in lease — On the part of lessor, 1079 § 1334. Same — Same — Covenant for quiet enjoyment 1079 §133.5. Same — Same — Implied covenants for quiet enjoyment. .. . 1081 § 1336. Same — Same — Covenant to repair 1083 § 1337. Same — Same — Same — Effect of lessor's covenant to repair, 1085 § 1338. Same — Same — Covenant to renew lease 1086 § 1339. Same — Sarae — Covenant against incumbrances 1093 § 1330. Same — Same — Same — When covenant is broken — Damages for breach 1093 § 1331. Same — Same — Covenant for further assurance 1095 § 1333. Same— On part of lessee 1096 § 1333. Same — Same — Covenant to pay rent 1099 § 1334. Same — Same — Covenant to pay taxes 1101 § 1335. Same — Same — Covenant to insure premises 1103 § 1236. Same — Same — Covenant as to use of premises 1103 § 1337. Same — Same — Covenant not to assign or underlet 1104 § 1338. Same — Same — Covenant to deliver in good repair 1105 § 1239. Same — Same — Covenant against waste 1106 § 1240. Same — On part of assignee and sub-lessee 1107 CONTENTS. Xli PAGE § 1241. Covenants raised by fraud 1109 § 1243. Construction of covenants 1110 Section VI.— The Lease— Assignment and Subletting. § 1343. Assignment of lease 1111 § 1244. Same— Clause prohibiting 1113 § 1345. Same — Statutory restrictions 1113 § 1346. Same— Involuntary assignments 1113 § 1347. Same — By insolvent assignee 1114 § 1248. Same — Transfer of entire term in part of premises 1115 § 1349. Same — Assignee takes subject to burdens 1116 § 1250. Same— How made 1118 § 1251. Same— Of reversion 1119 § 1253. Distinction between assignment and sub-leasing 1131 § 13.53. Same — Effect of reservation 1132 §1354. Sub-leasing 1133 § 1355. Same — Sub-lessee's covenants 1124 Section VII. — The Lease— Termination, Holding Over. § 1356. Termination of lease , 1135 § 1357. Same— By surrender 1136 § 1358. Same — By eviction of landlord 1136 § 1259. Same — By eviction of tenant by lessor 1137 § 1360. Same— By collateral event 1138 § 1361. Same — By exercise of riglit of eminent domain 1129 § 1363. Holding over— Definition 1130 § 1363. Same — What constitutes a holding over 1130 § 1364. Same— Effect of holding over 1131 § 1265. Same— Same — On terms of lease 1183 § 1366. Same— Same — On privileges conferred by the lease 1134 § 1367. Same — Holding over by consent— Character of tenancy. . . 1134 Section VIIL— Forfeiture, Surrender, and Merger. § 1268. Forfeiture of lease— Grounds of 1137 § 1369. Same— By alienation 1143 § 1370. Same— Same— Involuntary alienation 1143 § 1371. Same— By assigning or sub-leasing 1143 § 1373. Same— By disclaimer— Common-law doctrine 1144 § 1373. Same— Same— What amounts to a disclaimer 1145 § 1274. Same— Same— Effect on statute of limitations 1146 § 1275. Same— Same— American doctrine 1147 § 1276. Same— Same— Notice to lessor 1148 § 1377. Same— by failure or refusal to pay rent 1150 § 1378. Same— Same— Tender saves forfeiture 1151 § 1279. Same— By failure to insure 1153 ^ 1280. Same— By commission of waste 1153 xlii CONTENTS. PAGE § 1381. Same — How taken advantage of 1153 § 1383. Same— Waiver of forfeiture 1153 § 1383. Same— Relief against forfeiture 1157 § 1384. Same— Effects of forfeiture 1158 § 1385. Surrender — Necessity of 1159 §1386. Same— Requisites of 1160 § 1387. Same— Acceptance 1160 § 1388. Same — By operation of law 1161 § 1389. Same — What amounts to a surrendet 1163 § 1390. Same — Agreement to surrender — Consideration 1163 § 1391. Same— Effect on third person 1163 § 1393. Merger— Definition 1163 8 1393. Same— When occurs 1164 Section IX. — Eviction, Desteuction, and Use of Premises. § 1394. Eviction- What constitutes 1168 § 1395. Same — Actual eviction 1167 § 1396. Same — Constructive eviction 1168 § 1397. Same— By landlord or of landlord 1169 § 1398. Same — By stranger — Duty of lessee 1169 § 1399. Same — Same — May attorn to stranger when 1170 § 1300. Same — By eminent domain 1170 § 1801. Same— Effect of eviction 1171 § 1303. Destruction of premises — Effect on covenants 1175 § 1303. Same— Effect on rent 1177 § 1304. Same — Same — Apportionment of rent 1180 § 1305. Same — Where term commences infuturo 1180 § 1306. Same — Effect on covenant to repair, etc 1181 § 1307. Same — Same — Effect of lessor's insurance 1181 § 1308. Same — Lessor not bound to repair 1183 § 1309. Same — Liability of lessee for property destroyed 1183 § 1310. Use of premises 1183 § 1311. Same — Restrictions on use 1184 Section X. — Fixtures, Alterations, Improvements, and Repairs. § 1313. Fixtures— What are 1186 § 1313. Same— Right of removal 1187 § 1814. Same — Same — On renewal of lease 1188 § 1315. Alterations by lessor 1189 § 1316. Improvements by tenant 1189 § 1317. Repairs — By lessor — Common-law doctrine 1190 §1318. Same — Same — Statutory variance of the common-law rule, 1191 § 1319. Same — Same — May make repairs to prevent ruin 1193 § 1330. Same — Same — Liability for damage on repairing 1193 § 1331'. Same — Same — Damages resulting from defective premises, 1194 § 1333. Same — Same — Liability to tenant for failure to make repairs 1196 CONTENTS. xliii PAGE § 1323. Same— Same— Liability to lessee's servant for failure to make repairs II97 § 1324. Same— Same— Liability to stranger for failure to make repairs II97 § 1325. Same— Same— Repairing of unhealthy premises llfO § 1326. Same — By lessee 1201 §1327. Same— Same — Liability in damages for failure to repair. . 1201 Section XI.— Incidents of an Estate foe Years. § 1328. Introduction — General rights 1203 § 1329. Alienation— Right of 1204 § 1330. Accidental fire — Liability for 1204 § 1331. Emblements — When tenant is entitled to 1203 § 1332. Same — Lessee's title to crops 1207 § 1333. Same — Same — Away-going crops 1208 § 1334. Incumbrance on reversion 1211 § 1335. Entailment: 1213 § 1336. Estoppel to deny title 1212 § 1337. Same — Foundation of doctrine 1215 § 1338. Same — When estoppel arises 1216 § 1339. Same — Against vrhom estoppel extends 1216 § 1340. Same — Same — Lessee's assignee 1217 § 1341. Same — Wliere lessee has not gone into possession under lessor 1217 § 1342. Same — Time during wliioh estoppel lasts 1218 § 1343. Same— When may be invoked 1219 § 1344. Same — Acquirement of outside title 1220 § 1345. Same — Equitable title against landlord 1220 § 1346. Same— Expiration of landlord's title 1220 § 1347. Same — Demise of a franchise — Not within rule when 1230 § 1348. Same — In lease witli joint lessors 1221 § 1349. Same — Personal disability of lessor 1221 § 1350. Same — Purchase of title by lessee 1221 § 1351. Same— Title in state, etc .' 1233 § 1352. Same — When doctrine does not apply 1223 § 1353. Estovers— Right to take 1223 § 1354. Fixtures— Right to remove 1224 § 1355. Forfeiture 1224 § 1356. Insurable interest 1224 § 1357. Liability for debts 1224 § 1358. Limitation for life with remainder over 1226 § 1359. Merger 1226 § 1360. Notice to quit 12J7 § 1361. Rent 1227 § 1362. Taxes 1227 § 1363. Waste 1237 § 1364. Same — " Without impeachment for waste " 1328 xliv CONTENTS. Section XII.— Letting on Shakes. PAGE § 1365. Nature of the contract— Where rent payable in share of crop 1239 § 1366. Same— Where land tilled for share of crop 1233 § 1367. Same — Same — Where crop, or a part, to be consumed on premises 1235 § 1368. Same — Same — Where possession of crop to remain in lessor 1236 § 1369. Same — Same — Cropper's interest before division 1337 § 1370. Same— Same— Landlord's lien for rent 1338 § 1371. Same — Distinction between leasing and cropping on the shares 1338 § 1373. Same — Partnership between parties 1339 §1373. Same — Breach of contract of lease on shares — Damages.. 1345 § 1374. Same— Same — Measure of damages 1247 Section XIIL— Descent op a Term for Years. § 1375. Common-law doctrine 1348 § 1376. Disposition of term— By deed 1349 § 1377. Same— By devise 1250 CHAPTER XXI. ESTATES AT WILL. Section I. Nature of the estate. Section II. Incidents of the estate. Section III. How the estate created. Section IV. Between whom the estate may exist. Section V. How estate terminated. Section I. — Nature of the Estate. g 1378. Definition of estate at will 1351 § 1379. Nature of tenancy at will 1253 § 1380. Distinguished from an estate at sufferance 1253 § 1381. Distinguished from an estate from year to year 1354 § 1383. Same — Judicial conversion of estates at will into estates from year to year 1255 § 1383. Kinds of tenancies at will 1356 § 1384. When tenancy at vs^ill created 1357 § 1385. Who a tenant at wiU 1357 § 1386. When a term is a tenancy at w^ill 1260 Section II. — Incidents of the Estate. §1387. Introductory... 1263 § 1388. Assignment and sub-leasing 1366 CONTENTS. xlv PAGE § 1389. Lessee's right to emblements 1267 § 1390. Lessee's right to estovers 1268 § 1391. Lessee estopped to deny lessor's title 1268 § 1393. Improvements by lessee — No right in 1268 § 1393. Ingress and egress— To remove crops, et3 1268 § 1394. Notice to quit— Reasonable time to remove 1369 § 1395. Rent— Necessity of and liability for 1275 § 1396. Waste— Liability for 1277 Section III. — How Estate Created. § 1397. Methods of creation— 1. By contract and implication of law 1278 § 1398. Same— 2. By deed 1279 § 1399. Words and acts of parties creating 1279 § 1400. Same — By agreement 1280 § 1401. Same— By entry under an agreement for a lease 1281 § 1402. Same— By entry under an agreement to sell 1282 § 1403. Same — By entry under a void deed or lease 1283 § 1404. Same — By grantor's retaining possession 1284 § 1405. Same — By holding over 128.") § 1408. Same— By parol gifts of lands 12SG § 1407. Same— By parol lease of lands 1286 Section IV.— Between Whom Estate may Exist. § 1408. Introductory 1287 § 1409. Between master and servant 1287 § 1410. Between vendor and vendee 1239 Section V.— How Terminated, § 1411. Inti'oduction — Common-law doctrine 1293 § 1412. Demand and notice — Sufficiency of 1294 § 1418. By act of lessor— Bankruptcy 1296 § 1414. By act of the lessee — Abandonment 1296 CHAPTER XXII. ESTATE FROM YEAR TO YEAR. Section I. Nature and origin of the estate. Section II. Incidents of the estate. Section III. How the estate created. Section IV. Periods of tenancy for less than a year. Section V. Who may be tenants of the estate. Section VI. How the estate terminated. Section I.— Nature and Origin of the Estate. § 1415. Definition 1298 § 1416. Origin of the estate 1299 xlvi CONTENTS. PAGE § 1417. Nature of the estate 1300 § 1418. Distinguished from term 1801 § 1419. Distinguished from tenancy at will 1303 § 1420. Reservation of rent necessary 1303 § 1421. Judicial legislation touching 1303 § 1422. Statutory regulation 1303 Section II. — Incidents of the Estate. § 1428. Introductoi-y 1305 § 1424. Occupation of premises 1306 § 1435. Eight to determine 1307 § 1426. Notice to quit^When required 1307 § 1427. Same— Time given in 1310 § 1428. Same — Where term, less than a year 1311 Section III.— How the Estate Created. § 1429. Introductory — Various methods of creation 1313 § 1430. By express agreement — A year or less 1314 § 1431. By holding over — Landlord's assent 1315 § 1433. By implication — Agricultural leases 1318 § 1433. By lease or permissive occupancy for indefinite time 1319 § 1434. By occupancy and payment of rent under a void lease. . . . 1331 § 1435. By parol lease — Parol continuance of lease 1333 § 1436. By rent reserved — Acceptance and demand 1334 Section IV.'— Periods op Tenancy Less than a Year. § 1437. Introductory— Periodical holding 1336 § 1438. Quarterly letting— When yearly holding 1338 § 1439. Monthly letting— Common-law doctrine 1328 § 1440. Same— Holding over— Effect on term 1329 § 1441. Weekly letting— Inference of law 1330 § 1442. Statutory regulations — Enlargement of term 1331 Section V. — Who mat be Tenants of the Estate. § 1443. Generally— Corporations 1331 Section VI.— How the Estate Terminated. § 1444. Methods of determination — Notice 1332 § 1445. Same — Insolvency of the lessor 1334 § 1446. Same — Death of tenant 1334 § 1447. Periodical tenancies 1334 § 1448. Notice to quit — Parol consent 1336 § 1449. Same — Tenancy from year to year 1337 § 1450. Same — Tenancies for less than a year 1338 CONTENTS. xlvii PAGE § 1451. Same— Same— Quarterly tenancy 1338 § 1453. Same— Same— Monthly tenancy . 1339 § 1458. Same — Same— Half -monthly tenancy 1340 § 1454. Same— Same— Weekly tenancy 1341 § 1455. Same — By tenant 1342 § 1456. Same— Parol or in writing I343 § 1457. Same — Service of notice of 1344 § 1458. Same — Waiver of notice 1344 CHAPTER XXIII. ESTATES AT SUFFERANCE. Section I. Nature of the estate. Section II. Incidents of the estate. Section III. How estate created. Section IV. How estate terminated. Section I. — Nature of the Estate. § 1459. Definition 1346 § 1460. Nature of the possession 1346 § 1461. Tenure of the estate 1347 Section II. — Incidents of the Estate. § 1463. Introductory — Rights and liabilities of tenant 1347 § 1463. Estoppel of tenant to deny owner's title 1348 § 1464. Improvements by a tenant at sufferance 1349 § 1465. Notice to quit— Service of 1350 § 1466. Same — Time to remove 1351 § 1467. Trespass and ejectment by tenant 1351 § 1468. Liabihty and damages 1353 Section III. — How Estate Cheated. § 1469. By act of law 1353 § 1470. By act of the parties 1353 § 1471. By lawful entry 1353 § 1473. Who are tenants at sufferance 1353 Section TV. — How Estate Terminated. g 1473. Introductory 1356 § 1474. Modes of entry 1356 xlviii CO^'TENTS. CHAPTER XXIV. SEcnos I. Section n. Section m. Section IV. Section T. Section XI. Section \ii. Section S III ESTATES BY MARRIAGE. Husband's estate in wife's realty. Husband's estate jure uxoris. Homestead exemption — Introductory. Homestead exemption — ^Who entitled to. Homestead exemption — ^Property subject to. Homestead exemption — ^How acquired. Homestead exemption — Termination. Homestead exemption — Construction and procedure. § U"5. § liV6. g U77. g 147S. § 1479. § 1480. g 1481. § 14S-3. § 1483. § 14S4. g 14S5. § 14.S6. § 14S7. § 14SS. § 1489. g 1490. § 1491. § 1492. g 1493. g 1494. § 1495. § 1496. g 1497. § 1498. § 1499. g 1500. g 1501. S 1502. Section I. — Husband's Estate in "Wife's Realty. FAGB Introductory 1358 Estate during coverture — Effect of death or divorce 1359 Estate in wife's estate of inheritance 1359 Estate in wife's life estate 1360 Estate in wife's dower estate 1363 Section H. — Husband's Estate Juse Uxokis. Introductory — Nature of tlie estate 1363 Distinguished from cxutesy initiate 1365 Incidents of the estate — Generally 1366 Same — 1. Right of alienation 1367 Same — 2. Right to maintain action 1367 Same— 3. Right to lease 1368 Same — 4. Right to rents and profits 1368 Same — 5. Right to the beneficial seisin 1369 Same — 6. LiabiUty for waste 1369 To what estates of wife attach 1370 How estate prevented from attaching 1370 Same — 1. By settlement 1371 Same — 2. By conveyance during coverture 1373 Same — Same — Xew Tork doctrine 1373 Same — Same — In Xew England states 1374 Same — Same — In other states 1375 Same — 3. By statutory enactment 1376 How estate barred 1377 Statutory changes 1377 Section HI. — ^Hoiiestead Exemption — ^Istroductoet. definition 1378 Purpose and policy of 1379 Homesteads favored in law 1880 Nature and incidents of homestead estate 1381 CONTENTS. Xlix FAQB § 1503. What constitutes a homestead 1383 § 1504. Kinds of lioniesteads— 1. Rural and urban 1387 § 1505. Same— 3. Mixed homesteads 1387 § 1506. Same— 3. Business homesteads 1390 § 1507. Title and tenure necessary to support liomestead 1393 Section IV. — Homestead Exemfhon — Who Entitled to. § 1508. Who may claim homestead exemption — Generally 1395 § 1509. Same— Head of famUy 1396 § 1510. Same — Same — Unmarried person 1400 § 1511. Same — Same — A wife 1401 § 1512. Same — Same — A widower or widow 1403 § 1513. Executions ex delicto — Not affected by 1403 § 1514. Effect of death or loss of family on 1403 § 1515. Same — Marital survivor 1406 § 1516. Wife's rights in homestead exemption 1407 § 1517. Widow's right in homestead exemption 1409 § 1518. Same — Non-resident widow 1410 § 1519. Same — Effect on, of assignment of dower 1411 § 1530. Same — Ante-nuptial contract and re-marriage 1413 § 1531. Same — Actions affecting 1413 § 1533. Children's rights in homestead exemption 1413 Section V. — Homestead Exemption — Property Subject to. § 1533. What property subject to homestead — Generally 1415 § 1534. Same — Business property 1416 § 1535. Same— Same— Use as a hotel 1417 § 1536. Same — Community property 1418 § 1537. Same — Contiguous premises 1418 § 1538. Same— Double houses 1430 § 1539. Same — Encumbered property 1421 § 1530. Same— Equitable estates 1431 §1531. Same — Same — Possession under contract of purchase 1423 § ir):;3. Same— Estates by the curtesy 1423 § 1533. S:ime— Estates by the entirety 1423 § 1534. Same— Estates for life and for years 1424 § 1535. Same — Leasehold estates 1424 § 1536. Same — Joint tenancies and tenancies in common 1434 § 1537. Same— Land purchased witli pension money 1437 § 1538. Same— Same— With proceeds of pension checli 1430 § 1539. Same— Offices, shops, and store 1431 § 1540. Same— Partnership realty 1433 § 1541. Same— Same— In house built with partnersliip funds 1432 § 1543. Same — Tenement houses 1433 § 1543. Same— Wife's separate estate 1434 § 1544. Amount and location of homestead — Introductory 1434 § 1545. Same— Rural homesteads 1437 § 1546. Same — Urban homesteads 1438 4 1 CONTENTS. PAGE § 1547. Same — Contiguous parcels of land 1439 § 1548. Same— Shifting homesteads 1440 Section VI. — Homestead Exemption — How Acquired. § 1549. How homestead acquired 1441 § 1550. Same — 1. Occupancy and use 1441 § 1551. Same — Same — Necessity for occupancy 1442 § 1553. Same — Same — Same — Intention to occupy ^. . 1444 § 1553. Same — Same — Nature of occupancy 1445 § 1554. Same — Same — Same — Exclusive use as a home 1446 § 1555. Same — 3. Declaration and election 1446 § 1556. Same — 3. Dedication and appropriation 1447 § 1557. Same — 4. Setting apart — Judicial proceedings , 1448 § 1558. Eights of husband in and over homestead 1449 § 1559. Eights of wife in and over homestead 1451 Section VII.— Homestead Exemption— Termination. § 1560. How homestead terminated 1453 § 1561. Same — 1. By abandonment 1454 § 1563. Same — Same — Temporary removal 1456 § 1563. Same — Same — What amounts to an abandonment 1460 § 1564. Same — Same — Intention to abandon 1461 § 1565. Same — Same — Change of intention 1463 § 1566. Same— Same— By husband 1463 § 1567. Same— Same— By wife 1463 § 1568. Same — Same — By widow 1464 § 1569. Same — Same — By infant children 1464 g 1570. Same — Same — Evidence of abandonment 1465 § 1571. Same — Same — Effect of abandonment 1486 § 1573. Same— 3. By alienation 1467 § 1573. Same— Same— By husband 1468 § 1574. Same — Same — Same — Wliere homestead abandoned 1470 §1575. Same — Same — Same — Where wife insane or living apart. . 1471 § 1576. Same— Same— Same— After wife's death 1473 § 1577. Same— Same— By wife 1472 § 1578. Same — Same — By husband and wife jointly 1473 § 1579. Same — Same — Eelinquishment of homestead 1476 § 1580. Same — Same — Eecord of instrument 1477 § 1581. Same — Same — Forced alienation 1477 § 1583. Same — Same— Form and sufficiency of instrument 1478 § 1583. Same — Same — Fraudulent conveyance 1480 § 1584. Same — Same — Eestraint upon alienation 1483 § 1585. Same — Same — Same — Contract to convey — Specific per- formance 1484 § 1586. Same— Same — Same — Damages for failure to convey 1487 § 1587. Same — 3. By incumbrance 1487 § 1588. Same — Same — By husband 1489 § 1589. Same — Same — By husband and wife 1490 CONTENTS. li PAGE § 1590. Same — Same — Purchase-money mortgage and trust-deed, 1491 § 1591. Same — Same — Sale under mortgage foreclosure 1493 §1592. Same— 4. By forfeiture 1495 § 1593. Same — 5. By liabilitj' for claims of creditors 1496 § 1594. Same — Same — Liability for purchase-money 1496 8 1595. Same — Same — Same — Wliat is purchase-money 1497 § 1596. Same — Same — Same — Money used in purcliasing outstand- * ing title 1498 § 1597. Same — Same — On attachment 1499 § 1598. Same — Same — On execution 1501 § 1599. Same — Same — On judgment 1504 § 1600. Same — 6. By waiver of homestead rights 1505 Section VIII. — Homestead Exemption— Construction aud Practice. § 1601. Inti'oductory — Constitutional and statutory provisions. . . . 1506 § 1602. Constitutionality of statutes creating homesteads 1508 § 1603. Same — Varying constitutional provision 1509 § 1604. Same— Retroactive statute's 1509 § 1605. Construction of homestead statutes 1513 § 1606. Same — Retroactive construction 1516 § 1607. Protection of homesteads — Mortgage not foreclosed when, 1518 § 1608. Descent of homesteads — Disposition by will 1519 § 1609. Actions affecting homestead — Pleadings 1522 § 1610. Same— Wife as party to 1523 CHAPTER XXV EQUITABLE ESTATES— USES. Section I. Origin and history of uses. Section II. Uses before the statute of uses. Section III. Uses under the statute of uses. Section IV. Modern docti-ine of uses. Section I. — Origin and History of Uses. § 1611. Introduction of uses — Saving from attainders 1525 § 1612. Same — Effect on system of conveyancing 1527 § 1613. Same— Time of introduction. 1527 § 1614. Derivation of uses — Fidei-commissum 1528 § 1615. Reason for the fldei-comm,issum 1528 § 1616. Hceres fiduciarius — Jusprecarium 1529 § 1617. Fidei-commissa — Historical origin 1529 § 1318. Cestui que use. — Clerical chancellors 1530 g 1619. Secret uses — Chancery could not enforce 1531. § 1620. Introduction of writ of subpoena 1531 § 1621. Same — Checks upon the chancellors 1532 § 1622. Same— Abuses of writ restrained 1533 lii CONTENTS. Section II. — Uses Before the Statute of Uses. PAGE § 1623. Definition — Rights and powers of trustee 1534 § 1624. Distinction between uses and trusts 1535 §1625. How uses created — Separating beneficial use and seisin.. . 1535 § 1626. Same— By declaration 1535 § 1627. Same— By feoffment 1536 § 1628. Same— By resulting use 1536 § 1629. Same — Same — In what estates 1537 § 1630. Same — Consideration to support 1537 § 1631. Estates in uses — All common-law estates 1538 § 1632. Who may be grantees to uses 1539 § 1633. Same— Corporations 1539 § 1634. What may be conveyed to uses 1541 § 1635. Incidents of uses — Introductory 1541 § 1636. Same— Alienation 1542 § 1637. Same — Disposition by will 1543 § 1638. Same— Forfeiture for attainder 1543 § 1639. Enforcement of use 1544 § 1640. Lost by forfeiture 1545 Section III.— Under the Statute of Uses. § 1641. History of the statute of uses 1546 § 1642. Adoption of the statute in the United States 1548 § 1643. Uses under the statute 1550 § 1644. When statute operates 1551 § 1645. What property may be conveyed to uses 1553 § 1646. Who may be seized to uses 1554 § 1647. Feoifee in esse requisite 1555 § 1648. Feoffee and cestui que use same person — Merger 1556 § 1649. Cestui que use in esse necessary 1556 § 1650. Use in esse necessary 1557 § 1651. Use upon use 1558 § 1652. Active and passive uses 1559 § 1653. Use to married women 1560 § 1654. Words creating use — Limitations 1563 § 1655. Constructions of uses 1563 § 1656. Same — Rules of construction 1564 § 1657. Uses executed wlien 1565 § 1658. Extinguishment and supervision 1566 Section IV. — Modern Doctrine of Uses. § 1659. Contingent, etc., uses 1568 § 1660. Contingent future uses — Scintilla juris 1567 § 1661. Same— Meaning of term 1568 § 1662. Same — Springing uses 1569 § 1663. Same — Shifting or secondaiy use 1569 § 1664. Same — In chattel interests — Future use in 1570 § 1665. Same — Defeating springing and shifting uses 1570 § 1666. Same— Incidents of spi-inging and shifting uses 1571 CONTENTS. Hii CHAPTER XXVI. EQUITABLE ESTATES— TRUSTS. Section I. Section II. Section III. Section IV. Section V. Section VI. Section VII. Section VIII. Section IX. Section X. Section XI. Section XII. Section XIII. Section XIV. Section XV. Section XVI. Nature and origin. Creation and extent of trust. Delivery and acceptance of trusts. Kinds of trusts. Trustee — Appointment, resignation, and removal. Trustee — Power of. Who may be beneficiary. Validity and construction of trusts. How trusts established. Jurisdiction over trusts. Eights and liabilities under trusts. Sale and assignment of trust property. Adverse possession. Renunciation of trust. Revocation of trust. Extinction and termination of trust. § 1667. § 1668. § 1669. § 1670. § 1671. § 1672. S 1673. § 1674 § 1675. § 1676. § 1677. § 1678. § 1679. § 1680. § 1681. § 1682. § 1683. § 1684. § 1685. § 1686. § 1687. Section I. — Nature and Origin. PAGE Introductory — Definition 1573 Origin of ti-usts — Early English statute 1575 Incidents of trusts — Introductory 1576 Same— Right to title 1576 Same — Liability for debts 1579 Same — Merger 1579 In what estates trusts created 1581 Section II. — Creation and Extent op Trusts. Introductory — At common law — First rule 1583 Same — Same — Second Rule 1583 Same — Same — Third rule 1584 Same— In United States 1584 Declaration of trust — Necessity for 1586 Same — Who may make 1587 Same — When made 1588 Same — How made 1588 Same — By instrument in writing 1589 Same— By will 1591 Same — Form of words 1591 Same— Words of limitation 1594 Estate taken by trustee 1595 Same — Remainder 1596 liv CONTENTS. Section III.— Delivery and Acceptance. FAQE § 1688. Delivery of instrument. 1597 § 1689. Acceptance— By trustee 1598 § 1690. Same— Same— Effect of declination 1599 § 1691. Same — By cestui que trust 1600 Section IV. — Kinds of Trusts. § 1693. Introductory— Charitable trusts 1602 § 1693. Active and passive trusts '. 1604 § 1694. DiscretionaMry and dii-ectory 1608 § 1695. Executed and executory 1608 § 1696. Express trusts 1609 § 1697. Same— In land 1610 §1698. Implied trusts— Definition 1611 § 1699. Same— How created 1613 § 1700. Same — Not within the statute of uses 1614 § 1701. Same — Within statute of limitations 1615 § 1702. Same — Constructive trusts 1615 § 1703. Same— Same— Trusts de son tort 1618 § 1704. Same — Same — Trusts ex malefacio 1619 § 1705. Same — Same — Acquisition and disposition of property— By trustee 1620 § 1706. Same— Same— Same— Fraud in 1683 § 1707. Same — ^Voluntary conveyance in fraud of creditors 1623 § 1708. Same— Precatory trusts 1636 § 1709. Same — Same — Words and expressions creating 1638 § 1 710. Same — Same — American doctrine 1600 § 1711. Same — Resulting trusts — Introductory 1633 §1713. Same— How created 1634 § 1713. Same— Same— Exception to the rule 1686 § 1714. Same — Same — ^Where part of trust only declared, etc 1636 § 1715. Same — Same — By payment of purchase-money 1638 § 1716. Same— Same— Same— Parol proof 1641 § 1717. Same — Same — By purchase with funds of another 1643 § 1718. Same — Same — Same — Requisites 1645 § 1719. Same — Same — Same — Reason for the rule 1647 § 1730. Same— Same— Same— Parol proof 1648 § 1731. Same — Same — By agreement to purchase for another 1649 § 1733. Same — Same — By payment of part of purchase price 1650 § 1733. Same — Statutory provisions 1653 § 1734. Same— When arises 1653 § 1735. Same — Consideration requisite 1653 § 1736. Same — How established — Parol evidence 1653 § 1727. Passive trusts 1654 Section V.— Trustee— Appointment, Resignation, and Removal. § 1738. Who may be trustee 1655 CONTENTS. Iv PAGE § 1739. Appointment and change 1659 § 1730. Resignation of trustee 1660 § 1731. Removal of trustee 1661 § 1733. Survivoi-ship of trust 1663 Section VI. — Trustees — Duty and Powers of. § 1733. Duties of trustee 1663 § 1734. Same— To furnisli support 1665 § 1735. Same— To invest funds 1666 § 1736. Powers of trustees 1666 § 1737. Same — ^Delegation of personal trust 1667 § 1738. Other powers 1667 Section VII. — Who may be Beneficiaeies. § 1739. Introductory 1670 § 1740. Trusts for benefit of third persons 1671 § 1741. Trusts for benefit of married women 1673 § 1743. Same — Pennsylvania rule 1673 Section VIII. — Vaudity and Construction of Trusts. § 1743. Introductory 1674 § 1744. Aliens— Trusts by and for 1679 § 1745. Statutory regulations — New York statute 1680 § 1746. Trusts to accumulate income 1680 § 1747. Immoral trusts — Atheistical books 1681 § 1748. Trusts violating rule against perpetuities 1681 § 1749. Trusts void for uncertamty 1683 § 1750. Public charities 1684 § 1751. Trusts to religious uses 1686 § 1753. Bequests to burying-grounds, etc 1686 § 1753. Construction of trusts — Introductory 1689 § 1754. Same — ^Rules of construction 1693 § 1755. Same— Rule in Shelley's Case 1693 § 1756. When executed by statute — Pennsylvania rule 1694 Section IX. — How Trusts Established. § 1757. Introductory — Burden of proof 1695 § 1758. Proof of trust— Written instrument 1696 § 1759. Same — Same— Consideration 1696 g 1760. Same— By parol 1699 § 1761. Same— By declaration of trust 1703 § 1763. Same — Same — Declarations of trustee 1703 Section X.— Jurisdiction of Trusts. § 1763. Equitable cognizance 1703 § 1764. Reason for the rule 1704 Ivi CONTENTS. Section XI. — Rights and Liabilities Under Trusts. PAGE §1765. Introductory 1706 § 1766. Of trustee— In respect to beneficiary 1707 § 1767. Same — In respect to trust property — Estate and title 1709 § 1768. Same — Same — Continuance of estate 1711 § 1769. Same — Same — At common law 1711 § 1770. Same — Same — ^Right to maintain action 1712 § 1771. Same — In management of estate 1713 § 1773. Same — Same — General powers 1717 § 1773. Same— Same— Investment 1718 § 1774. Same — Same — Same — In name of trustee 1719 § 1775. Same — Same — Same — How investment made 1720 § 1776. Same — Same— Same — In what investment to be made 1721 §1777. Same- Same— Right to sue 1723 § 1778. Same — Same — Liabilities for mismanagement 1723 § 1779. Same — Same — Allowance for improvements 1735 § 1780. Same — Accounting and discharge 1737 § 1781. Of co-tenants — Nature of estate taken — Survivorship 1739 § 1783. Sam&-Dutyof 1730 § 1783. Same— Liability of —Generally : 1733 § 1784. Same — Same — For acts of each other 1734 § 178S. Of beneficiary- Mutual relations 1 735 § 1786. Same— Title and interest of 1736 §1787. Same— Enforcement of trusts 1737 § 1788. Same— Same— When enforced 1739 § 1789. Same— Rights and powers of 1740 § 1790. Same— Same— To call for legal title 1741 § 1791. Same — Same — Same — When reconveyance presumed 1743 § 1793. Same — Same — To maintain ejectment 1744 § 1793. Same— Estoppel of 1745 § 1794. Of third parties — Creditors of beneficiary 1746 § 1795. Same — For performance of trust 1749 Section XII. — Sale and Assignment op Property. § 1796. When may be made— Generally 1750 § 1797. Same — Upon demand of beneficiary 1753 § 1798. Same — Power of trustee to sell 1754 § 1799. Same — Same — Notice of sale under trust 1755 § 1800. Same — Conveyance in contravention of trust 1756 § 1801. Same — Same — Liability of trustee 1756 § 1803. Same — Setting sale aside — Inadequacy of price 1757 § 1803. Purchaser or assignee takes subject to trust 1759 § 1804. Same — Following property 1759 § 1805. Same — Purchaser without notice 1763 § 1806. Same — Purchaser withnotice 1764 § 1807. Purchase by trustee— Sale voidable 1766 § 1808. Same — Legal or actual fiduciary relations 1769 § 1809. Same — Purchase from cestui que trust 1772 CONTENTS. Ivii PAGE § 1810. Same — Purchase at sale of co- trustee 1773 § 1811. Same — Purchase at sherifiE's sale 1773 § 1813. Same — Purchase through third person 1774 § 1813. Same — Purchase voidable only 1775 y 1814. Same — Same — ^Who may applj' to set aside sale 1775 § 1815. Same — Rights and title of purchaser 1776 Section XIII. — Adverse Possession. § 1816. Introductory 1779 § 1817. In express trusts 1780 § 1818. In implied trusts 1780 § 1819. Statute of limitations — Express trusts 1780 § 1830. Same— Constructive trusts 1783 § 1821. Same — Running against trustee 1784 Section XIV.— Rentjncia.tion of Trust. § 1833. Introductory 1785 § 1823. Renunciation by trustee 1787 § 1834. Same— Effect of refusal to act 1787 § 1835. Renunciation by beneficiary 1788 Section XV. — Revocation op Trust. § 1836. Voluntary trust — Power of revocation in deed 1789 § 1837. Same — Revocation after acceptance 1790 § 1838. Assignment for benefit of creditors 1793 Section XVI. — Extinction and Termination op Trust. § 1829. Introductory 1796 § 1830. Condition for termination — Deed of married woman 1798 § 1831. By surrender of trust 1799 § 1833. By death of beneficiary 1800 § 1833. By reconveyance of property 1800 § 1834. By sale under will 1801 CHAPTER XXVII. EQUITABLE ESTATES— POWERS. § 1835. Definition of power 1804 § 1836. Kinds of powers 1804 § 1837. Creation ot power— Form of words 1806 § 1838. Same — Instrument creating 1807 §1839. Same— New York doctrine 1807 g 1840. Powers distinguished from estates 1810 § 1841. Limitation of — Rule against perpetuities 1811 Iviii CONTENTS. FAOE § 1843. Same— Same— Validity of appointment 1813 § 1843. Construction of powers — Introductory 1813 § 1844. Same— Enlarging estate 1814 § 1845. Same — Life estate with power of sale 1815 § 1846. Same — Power to sell and use proceeds 1816 § 1847. Same — Personal confidence 1816 § 1848. Same — Power to trustees " and their heirs " 1317 § 1849. Same — Power to-a trustee "and his assigns" 1818 § 1850. Powers of appointment 1819 § 1851. Same— Extent of estate 1830 § 1852. Same — Power of disposal 1831 § 1853. Same— Power to appoint by will 1833 § 1854. Same — Absolute estate vests when 1833 § 1855. Liabilities of estates — For debt of donee 1834 § 1856. Same— For debts of beneficiary 1836 § 1857. Who may be donees 1836 § 1858. Who may be appointees 1838 § 1859. Who may execute powers 1829 § 1860. How executed 1830 § 1861. Same— Power to sell , 1831 § 1863. Same — Same — Given to several of a class 1833 § 1863. Power to married women 1836 § 1864. Same— By implication 1836 § 1865. Same — Excessive execution 1837 § 1866. Same — Successive execution 1838 § 1867. Same— Defective execution 1839 § 1868. Non-execution of power 1840 § 1869. Delegation on assignment of power 1841 § 1870. Survival of powers 1843 § 1871. Extinguishment and merger of power 1843 § 1873. Suspension and destruction of power 1844 CHAPTER XXVIII. CONDITIONAL ESTATES. § 1873. Introductory 1846 § 1874. Definition of conditional estates 1847 § 1875. Nature of conditional estates 1848 § 1876. Same— Assignment , 1848 § 1877. Distinguished from a trust 1850 § 1878. Distinguished from conditional limitation 1851 § 1879. Kinds of conditions 1851 § 1880. Same — Express or in deed 1851 § 1881. Same— Imphed or in law 1853 § 1883. Same — Precedent condition 1853 § 1883. Same — Same — Copulative condition 1853 S 1884. Same — Same — Particular estate 1854 CONTENTS. lix PAGE § 1885. Same — Subsequent condition 1854 § 1886. How created— Form of words 1855 § 1887. At what time created — As to things executed 1856 § 1888. Same — As to things executory 1857 § 1889. To what estates annexed 1857 § 1890. VaUd conditions — Conditions precedent 1837 § 1891. Same — Conditions subsequent 1858 § 1892. Void conditions — Conditions precedent 1859 § 1893. Same — Conditions subsequent 1860 § 1894. Failure to perform condition— EfiEect 1860 § 1895. Same — Who may enter for breach 1861 § 1896. Same — Same — After conveyance 1862 § 1897. Same — Apportionment 1863 §1898. Performance of condition 1862 § 1899. Same — Time of performance 1864 § 1900. Same — Place of performance 1865 § 1901. Forfeiture by non-performance 1866 § 1903. Same— Waiver of 1867 § 1903. Same — Excusing non-performance 1869 § 1904. Same— Belief against 1869 § 1905. Same— Who bound by 1873 CHAPTER XXIX. JOINT ESTATES. Section I. Estates in severalty. Section II. Estates in joint tenancy. Section III. Estates in common. Section IV. Estates in coparcenary. Section V. Estates in entirety. ^ Section VI. Estates in copartnership. Section VII. Incidents common to joint estates Section VIII. Partition of joint estates. Section I.— Estates in Severalty. § 1906. Introductory 1874 § 1907. Holding in severalty 1874 § 1908. Holding jointly 1874 Section II.— Estates in Joint Tenancy. § 1909. Definition 18"6 § 1910. Nature of the estate 18^0 § 1911. How created 18''''' § 1913. Same— ("ircumstances requisite 1878 § 1913. Same— Unity of interest 18'''8 Ix CONTENTS. PAOE § 1914. Same— Unity of title 1879 g 1915. Same— Unity of time 1880 § 1916. Same — Unity of possession 1880 § 1917. Incidents of joint tenancy — Survivorship 1881 g 1918. Same— Entry 1883 § 1919. Same— Not favored in equity 1883 § 1930. What may be held in joint tenancy 1883 § 1931. Who may be joint tenants 1884 § 1933. Same— Trustees 1884 § 1933. Same— Mortgagees 1885 § 1934. Same— Husband and wife 1886 § 1935. Same— Infants 1887 § 1936. Same — Executors and administrators 1887 § 1937. Same— Corporations 1888 § 1938. Obligations and liabilities 1888 § 1939. Same — To contribute share of purcliase price 1889 § 1930. Same — To contribute share of taxes 1889 § 1981. Same — To contribute share of incumbrance 1890 § 1933. Same — To contribute share of expenses for repairs 1891 § 1933. Same — To contribute share of expenses for improvements. 1898 § 1934. Same— To pay rent 1893 § 1935. Same — To account for rents and profits 1895 § 1936. Same — To share burdens and losses of common property. . 1896 § 1937. Adverse possession of joint tenant — What constitutes 1897 § 1938. Same— Ouster and disseisin 1898 § 1939. Same— Same— Effect of ouster 1899 § 1940. Same— Statute of limitations 1899 § 1941. Actions by and against joint tenants — By tenants 1900 § 1943. Same — Against tenants 1903 § 1943. Actions betvreen joint tenants 1903 § 1944. Same— At common lavsr 1903 § 1945. Same— In equity 1905 Sbction III. — Estates in Common. § 1946. Definition 1907 § 1947. Nature of the estate 1907 § 1948. Same — Independence of interest 1908 § 1949. Creation of the estate 1909 § 1950. Incidents of the estate 1910 § 1951. Possession by co-tenant 1913 § 1953. Same— Ouster 1915 § 1953. Joint estates — Tenancies in common vphen 1917 § 1954. Tenancies in common between husband and wife 1919 § 1955. Riglits and power of tenants in common 1931 § 1956. Same — To enter into agreements concerning common property 1931 § 1957. Same — To occupy common property 1933 ^ 1958. Same — To convey common property 1923 g 1959. Same — Same — Whole of property 1923 CONTENTS. Ixi PAGE § 1960. Same— Same— Undivided part of property 1933 § 1961. Same— Same— Specified part of property 1924 § 1963. Same— To lease common property 1935 § 1963. To license acts upon common property 1926 Section IV. — Estates in Coparcenary. § 1964. Definition 1926 § 1965. When estate vests 1937 § 1966. Distinguished from joint tenancies 1928 § 1967. Incidents of estate 1928 Section V. — Estates in Entirety. § 1968. Definition and origin 1939 § 1969. Distinguished from joint tenancies 1930 § 1970. Common-law rule 1931 § 1971. Same — In what states in force 1933 § 1973. Same — In what states changed hy statute 1933 § 1973. Tenants in common — Effect of marriage between 1938 § 1974. Husband and wife — Holding by moieties 1938 § 1975. Survivorship 1940 § 1976. Same — Husband's control — Common-law doctrine 1941 § 1977. Same— Modern rule 1943 § 1978. Same — Lease by husband 1944 § 1979. Same — Conveyance by husband 1945 g 1980. Same— Liability for husband's debts 1045 § 1981. Same— Wife's Inchoate interests 1946 § 1983. Community property — Origin of doctrine of 1946 § 1983. Same— What constitutes 1946 § 1984. Same — Same — Pi-operty purchased by husband 1947 § 1985. Same — Same — Property purchased by wife 1948 § 1986. Same— Liability for debts 1949 § 1987. Same— Descent of 19.50 § 1988. Effect of statute abolishing joint tenures 1950 § 1989. Effect of married women enabling statutes 1951 § 1990. Effect of divorce 1953 § 1991. Effect of partition 1955 Section VI. — Estates in Copartnership. § 19P3. Definition 1956 % 1993. Nature of the estate 1957 § 1994. When treated as personal property 1957 § 1995. Interest of partners in 1959 § 1996. Incidents of the estate— Alienation 1961 § 1997. Same— Liability for debts 1963 § 1998. Same— Liability to curtesy and partition 1963 § 1999. Same— Descent of 1964 Ixii CONTENTS. Section VII.— Incidents Common to Joint Estates. PAEB § 2000. Incidents to the estate — The four unities 1965 § 2001. Same — Action by and against tenants 1966 § 2003. Same— Alienation by tenants 1967 § 2003. Same— Lease by tenants 1967 § 2004. Same — Livery of seisin 1967 § 2005. Same— Right of survivorship 1968 § 2006. Same— Same— How destroyed 1969 § 2007. Same— Waste 1969 Section VIII. — Partition of Joint Estates. § 2008. Introductory 1970 § 2009. Definition of partition 1971 § 3010. Partition at common law 1973 § 2011. Partition imder statute 1974 § 2013. Kinds of partition 1975 § 2013. Same— Voluntary partition 1976 § 2014. Same — Same — By arbitrators 1976 § 2015. Same — Involuntary partition 1977 § 2016. Same— Parol partition 1977 § 2017. Same— Partial partition 1978 § 2018. Who may have partition 1979 § 2019. Same— Seisin requisite 1981 § 2020. What may be partitioned 1983 § 3031. Parties in action for partition 1983 § 2023. Pleadings and practice in action for partition 1985 § 2033. Trial of title in action in partition 1985 § 3034. Judgment or decree in action for partition 1986 § 3025. Manner of allotment 1987 § 2036. Same— Owelty 1988 § 3037. Same— Sale of land for division 1989 § 3028. WaiTanty in partition deeds 1989 § 2039. Effect of partition 1990 CHAPTER XXX. MORTGAGES. Section I. Origin and history. Section II. Nature and validity. Section III. Rights and liabilities under. Section IV. Rights and liabilities under — continued. Section V. Remedies incident to. Section I. — Origin and History. g 2030. Definition 1993 § 2031. Origin of mortgages— Civil-law doctrine 1994 CONTENTS. Ixiii PAGE § 3033. Same— Common-law doctrine 1994 § 3033. Same— Equity doctrine 1995 § 2034. Same— Same— Equity of redemption 1995 § 2035. Modern English mortgages 1996 § 3036. Doctrine of mortgages in the United States 1997 § 20.37. Kinds of mortgages 2000 § 3038. Same — Common-law mortgages 2001 § 3039. Same— Equitable mortgages 2001 § 3040. Same— Same— Deposit of title-deeds 3003 § 3041. Same— Same— Same— In this country 2003 § 2043. Same— Vendor's lien 2004 § 2043. Same — Same— Who may claim 2006 § 3044. Same — Same— Discharge of 2007 § 2045. Same — Vendee's lien 2008 § 2046. Welsh mortgages 2009 Section II.— Nature and Validity. 8 2047. Who may make mortgage— Common-law doctrine 3011 § 2048. Same — Married woman 2011 § 3049. Same — Imbeciles and lunatics 3013 § 3050. Same — Corporations 2013 § 2051. Same— Guardians, etc 2013 § 3053. Who may take a mortgage 3013 § 3053. What may be mortgaged 2015 § 3054. Same — Improvements 2016 § 2055. Same — After-acquired property 2017 § 3056. Same— Growing crops 3030 § 3057. What mortgage carries 2030 § 2058. Same — Essentials of mortgage — Introductory 2023 § 2059. Same— Parties to mortgage 2033 § 2060. Same— Property to be mortgaged 2023 § 2061. Same— Consideration 2024 § 2063. Same — Same — Payment of money 2036 § 2063. Same — Same — Performance of condition 2031 § 3064. Same— Execution and delivery 2033 g 2065. Same— Registration 2035 § 2066. Form of mortgage 2036 § 3067. Same— Defeasance clause 2038 § 3068. Same— Same— Form of defeasance 3039 § 3069. Same— Same— In equity 2043 § 2070. Conditional sale or mortgage 2043 § 3071. Same — Parol evidence to explain 2045 § 2073. Contemporaneous agreements 2050 § 3073. Same — Agreement to repurchase 3051 § 3074. Subsequent agreements 3055 § 2075. Validity and effect of mortgages 2055 g 2076. Invalidity of mortgages 3059 Ixiv CONTENTS. Section III. — Rights and Liabilities undee. PAGE g 2077. Mortgagor — Interests and rights 2063 g 2078. Same — Same — Eight to maintain action 2063 § 2079. Same— Same— Before condition broken 2063 § 2080. Same— Same— Eight to lease 2064 § 2081. Same — Same — Eight to rents and profits 2065 § 2082. Same— Same— Eight to emblements 2007 § 2083. Same — Same — Eight to impi'ove 2037 § 2084. Same — Same — Eight to convey — Subject to mortgage 2068 i< 2085. Same — Same — Same — Assumption of mortgage 2069 § 2086. Same— Same— Right to redemption 2073 §2087. Same— Same— Same— Loss of 2075 § 2088. Same — Same — Same — Contiibution on redemption 2075 § 2089. Same — Same — Eight to possession 2076 § 2090. Same — Same — Same — Agreement respecting 3078 § 2091. Same— Duties of— To pay taxes 3079 § 2093. Same— Same— To protect title 2030 § 2098. Same — Same — To preserve premises 2080 § 2094. Same— Liability of— To action at law 2081 P 3095. Same — Same — To sell equity of redemption 2083 § 2096. Mortgagee — Interests and rights of — At common law 2084 § 2097. Same— Same— Under statutes 2084 § 2098. Same— Same— Eight to rents and profits 2085 § 2099. Same— Duty of— To pay taxes 2086 § 2100. Same— Same— To make repairs 2086 § 2101. Same — Liabilities of — To account for rents and profits. .. . 2087 §2102. Same — Allowance for improvements and disbursements. . 2088 § 2108. Tenure under mortgage 2090 § 2104. Same — Adverse possession 2003 § 3105. Same— Same— "What constitutes 2094 § 2106. Same— Merger of interests 2095 Section IV. — Rights and Liabilities undee — continued. § 2107. Assignment of mortgagee's interest — How made 2099 § 3108. Same — Who may make 2101 § 3109. Same — Under common-law theory 2103 § 3110. Same — Under the lien theory 2104 § 2111. Same — Equitable assignment 2105 § 2113. Same — Consideration 3108 § 3118. Same — Notice and record 3109 g 2114. Same — Construction of 3110 § 2115. Assignment of mortgagor's interest 3113 § 2110. Same — Notice to mortgagee 2113 § 3117. Insurance of property — By mortgagor 3113 p 2118. Same — Same — Misrepresentations in application 2114 g 2119. Same — Same — Violation of condition against alienation. . . 3115 § 2020. Same — By mortgages 3117 § 3121. Same— Same— Provision requiring insurance for benefit of. 3118 CONTENTS. Ixv FAOE § 2132. Registry and priority 3119 § 3133. Same— Index to record 3133 § 2134. Same— Priority of registry 2123 § 2125. Payment— By mortgagor 2136 § 2136. Same— Same— Before maturity 2137 § 2137. Same— Same— At matuiity 2128 § 2128. Same — Same — After condition broken 2128 § 3139. Same — Same — After decree of foreclosure 3129 § 2130. Same — Same — Directing application 2129 § 2131. Same— By third party— Effect 2130 § 2133. Tender of payment— On law day 3131 § 3133. Same— After default 3131 § 3134. Same — After foreclosure commenced 3181 § 3135. Re-lease and discharge — Form and effect 3133 § 2136. Same— Wliat acts amount to 2132 § 2137. Same— Effect of '. 2134 Section V. — Remedies Incident. § 2138. Subrogating mortgagees 2135 § 2189. Tacking mortgages 2138 § 2140. Enforcing mortgages — Foreclosures 2140 § 3141. Same — Same— Nature of foreclosure 3143 § 2143. Same — Same — Methods of foreclosure 3142 § 2143. Same — Same — Foreclosure by entry and possession 3143 § 3144. Same— Same— Strict foreclosure 3148 § 3145. Same — Same — Statutory foreclosure 2145 § 3146. Same — Same— By action in equity 3145 § 3147. Same — Same — Parties to foreclosure — Parties plaintiff 2146 § 2148. Same — Same — Same — Parties defendant 2149 § 2149. Same — Same — Decree of foreclosure 3152 § 2150. Same— Same— Same— Effect upon the land 2155 § 3151. Same— Same— Same— Effect upon the debt 2157 § 2152. Same — Same— Sale of mortgaged premises— Under decree. 2158 § 2153. Same— Same— Same— Under power 2159 §3154. Same— Same— Same— Same— Extinguishment of power. . 2161 § 2155. Same— Same— Same— Rights of purchaser 2161 § 2156. Same— Same— Same— Purchase by mortgagee 2162 § 2157. Same— Same— Same— Application of proceeds of sale 2164 § 3158. Same— Same— Judgment for deficiency 3164 § 2159. Redemption— Definition and process 2167 § 2160. Same — Who may redeem 2169 § 2161. Same— When redemption may be made 2178 § 3163. Same— When right barred 2173 § 2168. Same— Same— How right of barred or lost 2174 § 3164. Same— Contribution on redemption 3176 § 3165. Same— Same— Between sureties of the mottgagors 3177 § 3166. Same— Same— Between mortgagor and his grantees 2178 § 2167. Same— Same— Between mortgagor's grantees 2179 5 IXvi "■ CONTENTS. TAOS § 3168. Same — Same— Between mortgagor's personal property and pledged estate 2181 § 2169. Same — Same — Between mortgagor's devisees, heirs, and widow 3182 § 2170. Same — Same — Agreements affecting rights of 3183 § 2171. Same — Accounting by mortgagee 2184 §2172. Waste— Action for damages 3185 § 2173. Same — Injunction against 3187 BOOK IV. INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTOBY. § 3174. Incorporeal hereditaments — Definition 3188 § 2175. Same— Kinds 3188 § 2176. Same— How created * 3189 § 2177. Same— How lost 3189 CHAPTER II. RIGHTS OF COMMON. § 3178. Definition 2190 § 2179. Kindsof []][[ 2193 § 2180. Common of pasture 2192 § 3181. Same — Common appendant 2193 § 2182. Same — Common appurtenant 2192 § 2183. Same — Common of vicinage 2194 § 3184. Same — Common in gross 3194 § 2185. Common of estovers 2195 § 2186. Same — Not severable or apportionable 2196 § 2187. Common of turbary 2196 § 2188. Common of piscary 2197 § 2189. Divesting right of common , 2198 § 2190. Apportionment of common gigg § 2191. Same — Common of pasture 2199 § 2192. Same— Common of estovers and piscary 3200 CONTENTS Ixvii § 2193. Extinguishment of common— By release 3300 § 2194. Same — By conveyance 3300 § 3195. Same — Unity of possession 3201 § 2196. Same— By severance 3301 CHAPTEE III. WAYS. § 3197. Introductory— Ways of two kinds— Public and private. . . 2303 § 3198. Kinds of ways 3304 § 2199. How acquired 3205 § 3300. Same— By prescription 3205 § 3201. Same — By dedication and condemnation 2305 § 3303. Same— By grant 3306 g 3303. Same— From necessity 2307 § 3304. Divesting ways 3208 § 2205. Repairing ways 3308 § 3306. Extinguishing rightof way 3308 § 3307. How revived 3309 CHAPTER IV. EASEMENTS AND SERVITUDES. § 2208. Definition 2210 § 3209. Distinguished from license 2313 § 2310. Distinguished from profits a prendre 3313 § 3311. Distinguished from covenants 2314 § 3312. Nature and incidents of 3315 § 3318. Kinds of easements — Introductory 3216 § 3314. Same— Private ways 3217 § 3315. Same— Same— By grant 2218 § 3216. Same — Same — By prescription 3319 §3317. Same— Same— By necessity 3230 § 2318. Same— Air and light 3223 g 3219. Same — Same — How acquired 3322 § 2220. Same— In waters 2224 § 2331. Same — Same— How acquired 3335 § 3333. Same — Same — In natural water-course 3337 § 3323. Same — Same — In artificial water-course 3238 § 2334. Same— Same— Percolating waters and swamps 3339 g 2235. Same— To lateral support 2381 § 2236. Same— Same— How acquired 2234 § 3337. Same— Same— Implied grant of lateral support 3234 § 3238. Same— Party walls 2234 Ixviii CONTENTS. PAGE § 3339. Same— Mines and mining 2337 § 2380. Same — Legalized nuisance 2339 § 2331. How created 2340 § 2333. How lost or extinguished 3343 § 3333. Same— How merged 3344 § 2334. Same— By act of parties 3245 § 2335. Same— By release 2247 § 2336. Rights and liabilities of parties 2247 CHAPTER V. RENTS. § 2237. Definition 2249 § 3338. Nature of the estate 3350 § 3339. Kinds of rents 2253 § 2340. How payable 3253 § 3341. Wlien payable 3255 § 3343. Where i)ayable 2256 § 3343. To whom payable 3356 g 3344. Who liable for— The tenant 3359 § 3345. Same — Parties continuing to occupy 3361 § 3346. Same — Assignee of tenant 3361 § 3347. Same — Assignee for benefit of creditors. 3365 § 3348. Same— Surety 3266 § 3349. Apportionment 2367 § 2350. Remedies of landlord 2270 § 2251. Same — Suit for use and occupation 3370 § 3353. Same— Suit for rent 3271 § 3353. Same— Distress for rent 3373 BOOK V. TITLE. CHAPTER I. FOUNDATION OF TITLE. § 3254. Introductory 3375 § 3355. Government grants 3376 § 3356. Other sources of title 3377 CONTENTS. Ixix CHAPTER II. HOW ACQUIRED. Section I. By descent. Section II. By original acquisition. Section III. By public grant. Section IV. By private grant. Section V. By involuntary alienation. Section I.— By Descent. PAGE § 3257. Introductory 3378 § 3358. Rules of descent 3379 § 3359. Same— To lineal descendants 3379 § 3360. Same— Same— Posthumous children 3379 § 3361. Same— Same— Illegitimate children 3380 § 2263. Same— Same— Adopted children 3383 § 3363. Same— To lineal ancestors 3383 § 2364. Same— Same— To father 3383 § 3365. Same— Same— To mother 3384 § 2366. Same— Same— To brothers and sisters . 3385 § 3267. Same— Same— Same— Of the whole and half-blood 3286 § 2368. Law governing descent of real property 2388 § 2269. Alienage as a bar 2289 Section II.— By Original Acqihsitipn. § 3270. Introductory 3390 § 3371. By prescription 2290 § 2273. By accretion 3293 § 2273. By adverse possession 2294 § 2274. By statute of limitations 2298 § 2275. By estoppel 2800 § 2276. By abandonment 3303 Section III.— By Pcblio Grant. § 3277. Introductory 2304 § 3378. Methods by which acquired 3305 S 3279. Same— By pre-emption 3306 § 3380. Same— By homestead entry 3308 § 3381. Same— By timber culture entry 3309 § 3383. Same— By desert land entry 2309 § 3383. Same— By entry under bounty or military land warrants . 3310 § 3384. Same- By purchase at public auction or private sale 3311 Section IV.— By Private Grant. §3385. Introductory 3311 Ixx ■ CONTENTS. PAQE § 2286. Common-law conveyances 3313 § 2387. Same— By feoffment 2313 § 2288. Same— By gift 2313 § 2289. Same— By grant 2313 § 2290. Same— By lease 2314 § 2291. Under statiite of uses 2314 § 2392. Same — Covenant to stand seized 2315 § 2293. Same— Bargain and sale 2318 § 2294. Same — Same — Limiting estate to commence infuturo. ... 3318 § 2295. Same — Lease and re-lease 2320 § 8296. Modem conveyances — By warranty deed 2320 § 3397. Same— By quit-claim deed 3331 Section V.— By Involtjktaby Alienation. § 3298. Introductory 3323 § 3399. Under exercise of eminent domain 3326 § 2300. Where persons under disability 3328 § 3301. Where title is defective 2330 § 3302. Where owner dies intestate 2333 § 3303. Where owner fails or refuses to pay just debts 3333 § 3304. Where owner fails or refuses to pay taxes 3335 CHAPTER III. DEEDS. § 2305. Introductory 2338 § 3306. Essentials of deeds 3338 § 3307. On what to be written 3339 § 3308. Sufficiency of writing 2339 § 3309. Same— Filling blanks 3340 § 2310. Wlio may convey by deed 2341 § 2311. Same— Persons blind, deaf, and dumb 2341 § 2312. Same— Corporations 2341 § 3313. Who may not execute deeds — Infants 3343 § 3314. Same — Same— Female infants 2344 § 2315. Same— Same— Male infants 2344 § 2316. Same— Idiots and lunatics 2344 § 2317. Same— Married women 3345 § 2318. Same— Persons attainted 2346 § 2319. Who may be grantees — Aliens , 2347 § 2330. Same— The wife 2347 § 2321. Same— Corporations 3348 § 2322. Consideration for deed 3348 § 3323. Description of property 2350 § 2324 Orderly parts of deed 2351 § 2325. Reading before signing 3351 CONTENTS. Ixxi FAOE § 2336. Signing and sealing 2353 § 3837. Delivery of deed 3353 §3338. Same— Mode of delivery 3353 § 3339. Same— Delivery in escrow 2354 § 2330. Attestation 2354 § 3331. Formal parts of a deed 2355 § 2332. Same— The date 3355 § 2333. Same — The parties to the instrument 2355 § 3334. Same — Same — Description of parties 2356 § 2335. Same— The description of the property 2356 § 3336. Same— The recital 2358 §2337. Same— Tlie consideration 3359 §3338. Same— The granting clause 3359 §3339. Same— The habendum 2360 §2340. Same— The reddendum 23G1 § 2341. Same— The covenants 2361 § 2348. Same— The testimonium clause 2363 § 2343. Same— The acknowledgment 2363 §2344. Recording deeds 2365 TABLE OF OASES. Keferences are to pages. Aaron v. Bayne, 760, 761 Abbe V. Goodwin, 2173, 2128 V, Neuton, 1625 Abendroth v, Greenwich, 2216 Abbot V. American Hard Rubber Co., 176S Abbott V. Abbott, 1919, 2298 V. Allen, 2061 V. Bagley, 2346 V. Berry, 1987 V. Bosworth, 977, 1249 V. Cromartie, 1382, 1502 V. Gatch, 1247, 1248 V. Godfrey, 2038 V. Hampden Ins. Co., 2116 V. Heard, 2348 V. Jenkins, 423 V. Kesson, 2130, 2131 V. Parsons, 1030, 103 1 V. Steams, 1173, 2266 V. Sworder, 1697 V. The Essex Co., 308, 320, 321, 335, 418 Abbott's Exr, v. Reeves, 1750 Abbott of Bury v. Bokenham, 521 Abby zf. Billups, 1068, 1098, 1107, 1108 Abdy, Doe d. v. Stevens, 1139, 1146 Abeel v. RadclifE, 1003, 1087, 1088, 1590, 1591 Abel V. Heathcote, 1669, 1670 Abell V. Douglass, 368, 2058, 2289 V. Lothrop, 1475 Abercrombie v. Baldwin, 211, 1914 V. Bradford, 1794 V. Redpath, 2260 V. Riddle, 746 Aberdeen v. Blackmar, iioi Abemethy v. Society of Church of Puritans, 32, 367 37, 38, 39 Abington v. Boston, 1456 V. Inhabitants of North Bridgewater, 1456 Abraham v. Bubb, 559, 576 V. Buff, 544 V. Twig, 1564 Abrahams -v. Tappe, 1139 Abrams v. Winshup, 342 Abshire v. State, loig Academy of Music v. Hackett, io6r, 1154, 1155 Acer &. Westcott, 1777, 2359 Acheson «/. Miller, 1517 Achilles v. Willis, 1439 Acker v. Acker, 2175 V. Trueland, 1445 Ackerly v. Dygert, 515 Ackerman v. Burrows, igog V. Emott, 1721, 1722 V. Gorton, 1809 V. Hensicker, 2120 V. Horicon Co., 2248 Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 2030 V. Lyman, 2271 V. Smiley, 1164 Ackland v. Ackland, 340 V. Lutley, 515, 969, 1006, 1596, 1605 V. Pring, 975 Ackley v. Chamberlain, 1386, 1387, 1392, 1416, 1417, 1418, 1442, 1445, 1501, 1502, 1504, 151S Ackroyd v. Smith, 2217, 2238 V. Smithson, 1638 Acocks V. Phillips, 1061, 1154 Acton V. Blundell, 2231 V. Woodgate, 1713, 1793, 1794 Adair z/. Adair, 2108 V. Bogle, 1245, 1246 V. Brimmer, 1721 V. Lott, 585, sg8, 600, 601, 603, 612, 624, 626, 629, 679, 6S2, 692, 693, 703 V. Shaw, 1764 V. Stone, 1290 Adams, Re, 1824 Adams z/. Adams, 486, 751, 752, 940, 1021, 1357, 1411, 1589, 1594, 1598, 1659, 1661, 1786, 1788, 1797, 2252, 2257 V. Ames Iron Co., 1975, 1981, 1982 V. Andrews, 2240 V. Angell, 2098 V. fearron, 852, 856 V. Beach, 1116, 1122, 1123 V. Beadle, 132 V. Beale, iig, 1408, 1451, 1452 V. Bean, 2267 V. Beekman, 781, 815, 820, 826, 889 V. Brackett, 647 V. Bradley, 2151 V. Brereton, 555, 569 v. Briggs Iron Co., 2237 V. Buchanan, 200S V. Buckland, 1888 V. Bucklin, 1004 V. Carter, 1245 7J. Chaplin, 383 V. Corriston, iggg, 2030, 2078, 2187 V. Cowherd, 2007 V. Cruft, 434 V. Decker, 1319 V. French, 976 V. Frothingham, 1922, 2293 V. Gale, i7r5 V, Gay, 2061 V. Goddard, 1163 V. Guerard, 2g7, 1548, 1649, 1694, 1700 V. Hagger, 1301 V. Jenkins, 1419 V. Johnson, 2001 V. Logan, 601, 603, 692, 693, 703 V. Mackey, 1375 V. McKesson, 1234, 1237 Ixxiii Ixxiy TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Adams v. McPartlin, 2138 V. Marshall, 64, 65, 507, 2241 V. Palmer, 905, go8, 1906, 2323, 232**, 2333 •V. Parker, 2102, 2103 •u. Pease, 68, 2198 V. Perry, 299, 1548, 1606 V. Rockwell, 2303 •u. Ross, 281, 2S4, 286, 531, 532 V. Savage, 1538, 1568, 1569 V. Smith, 53 V. Stevens, 2038 •u. Storey, 882, 919 V. Tanner, 2020 V. Taunton, 1788 •V. The Briggs Iron Co., 84, 88, 8g, 811, 1924, 1988 ■u. Wadham, 2070 V. Wilson, 1701 Adams Ex. Co. v. McDonald, 1315 Adamson v. Armitage, 1371 V. Ayers, 708 Addison v. Bowie, 1806 V, Crow, 2152 V. Dawson, 1032, 1033 V. Hack, 2212, 2246 V. Leavy, 2088 Adriance v. Hafkemeyer, 1131 Adsit V. Adsit, 880, 917, 918, 919, 935, 940, 946, 952, 955 jEtna Fire Ins. Co. v. Resh, 1932 .^tna Life Ins. Co. v. Corn, 810 v. Tyler, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2118 Agar t/. Young, 1149 Agate V. Gignoux, 996 •u. Lowenbeiii, 564 Agee V. Agee, 1815 Ager V. Young, 114S Agnew V. Johnson, 1247, 1904 V. Renwick, 2132 Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Barnard, 2159 V. Montague, 632 Agricultural, Mechanical, etc., Assoc, v. Brews- ter, 164S Aheam v. Freeman, 2138 Ah Hee v. Crippen, 88 Ah Lew V. Choate, 88 Ahrend z/. Odiorne, 2004, 2005 Aiken v. Aiken, 974 ■V. Albany R. Co., 1070, 1075, 1078 V. Bridgeford, 2171 V. Bruen, 2153, 2180 V. Gale, 2180, 2181 •u. Milwaukee, 2155 V. Milwaukee & St. P. R. R. Co., 811 V, Morris, 2061 V. Smith, 1232, 1234, 1238, 1239, 1605, 1707, 1742, 1909 Aikman v, Harsell, 838, 847, 848 Aiiisworth v, Rit, 66, 1015, 1176 Airey v. Buchanan, 1431 Akeel v. Spraker, 2154 Akerly v. Vilas, 2025 Akin w. Jeiferson, 1894 Alabama G. L. I. Co. -u. Oliver, 2250, 2251, 2258 Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. South & North R. Co., 2067 Albanany's Case, 1894 Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 402, 447, 1832, 2152 Albany Saving Inst. v. Burdick, 2330, 2331 Albany Street, Re, 2328 Albatross v. Wayne, 1209 Albee v. Carpenter, 351, 415, 423, 436 Albergottie v. Chaplin, 1975 Albert v. Bleeker St., etc., R. Co., 1247 Albertson v. White, 2052 Albin V. Lord, 896, 1035 V. Riegel, 46 Albright V. Cobb, 2102 Alcorn v. Morgan, looi, 1271 Alden v. Gilmore, 212 V. Wilkins, 2090 Aldershaw v. Breach, 1313 Alderson v. Henderson, 856 V, Schulze, 1905 Aldred's Case, 2240 Aldrich v. Albee, 1865 V. Husband, 2021 V. Martin, 1919 V. Reynolds, 47 V. Thurston, 1440 Aldridge v. Tuscumbia C. & D. Ry., 671 Alexander ». Alexander, 651, 661, 1040, 1667, 1775, 1837, 183S V. Bishop, 1245 V. Carew, 1294 V. Cunningham, 820, 821 •u. Dorsey, 1176 V. Ellison, 1891 V. Hamilton, 841 V. Hodges, 1141, 1156 V. Jackson, 141S, 1421, 1422 V. Kennedy, 1882, 1913, 1914, 1915 ' V. Miller, 78 z/. Pendleton, 2299 •u. Polk, 501, 2298 •V. Rodriguez, 2055 V. Tams, 1646, 1653 V. Touhy, 1 138 V. Vennum, 1471 V, Walter, 517 V. Warrance, 586, 679, 680, 68g, 779, 1004, 1658 V. Williams, 1782 Alexander's Exrs. v. Bradley, 746 V. Selden, 876 Alford "u. Lehman, 1485 V. Vickery, 2252 Alger z;. Kennedy, 1128, 1166, 1168, 1169 Allan w. Smith, 823, 843 AUard v. Carleton, 1975 Allbyerz*. State, 671 Alleghany v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 2191 Alleghany Oil Co. v. Bradford, 272, 1867 Allen V. Allen, 525, 955 z/. Allen's Admrs., 767, 2166 z/. Anderson, 520 V. Ashley School Fund, 465 •u. Backhouse, 1832 V. Bartlett, 1316 V. Bennett, 998, 1043 •u. Berryhill, 986 V. Billings, 2345 V. Brown, 2147 V. Bryan, 2270 V. Caldwell, 1422 V. Calvert, 1039, 1040 V. Carpenter, 1350, 1351, 1354 V. Chase, 1443, 1445 •V. Chatfield, 2164 V. Clark, 2076, 2153, 2178, 2180 V. Craft, 302, 401, 1821 V. Culver, 984, 1084, 1085, 1099, 2267 V. Dent, 1 138 V. Elderkin, 2067 V. England, 1288 V. Everly, 1998, 2078 V. Gibson, 1909 V. Gomme, 2219, 2220 V. Hall, 757, 758, 759, 1897 V. Harley, 1513 V. Hawley, 1407, 1408, 1421, 1422 V. Henderson, 420 V. Hill, 1355 V. Holten, 210, 1877, 2296 V. Hooker, 1035 V. Hooper, 647, 1360, 1361, 1364, 1367, 1368 V. Howe, 1864 V. Hoyt, 1979 V. Imlet, 1707 V. Jaquish, 1126, 1160, 1162, 1310 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxv Allen V. Kennedy, 130, 145 V. Lamden, 970, g8i V. Lanier, 1225 V. Lathrop, 2030 V. Lee, 1 701 V. McCoy, 742, 776, 789, 806, 841, 842, 844 V. McCullougn, 771 V. Mansfield, 1280, 1283, 1286 V. Markle, 423 V. Parish, 2303 V. Paul, 1214 V. Peay, 935 V. Pegram, 42 V. Poole, 20II V. Pray, 935 V. Reynolds, ooi, 911 V. Rhodebaugh's Admr., 1288 V. Sayer, 1785 V. Shackleton, 2061 •v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 1224 t'. Tate, 1919 V. Thayer, 211 V. Trustees of Ashley School, 418 •V. Van Houten, 2252, 2257, 2259 V. Van Meter, 315 V. Withrow, 1590 V. Woodward, 2021 V. Wooley, 1070 AUender's Lessee v. Sussan, 396, 974, 975, 1249 AUendorff v. Gaugengigl, 591 Alley V. Bay, 1450, 1475, 147S V. Lawrence, 1831 Allie V. Schmitz, 1920 AUin V. Bunce, 448 Ailing zi. Chatfield, 916, 934, 955 Allis V. Billings, 757, 986, 1032 Allison V. Armstrong, 2079 V. Kurtz, 1700 V. McCune, 2086 V. Shilling, 1465, 1484, 1485, i486, 1495 V. Sutherlin, 2177 V. Wilson's Exrs., 1826, 1844 Allore V. Jewell, 1034 AUoway v. Barbineau, 757 AUwood z'. Heywood, 491 Allyn V. Mather, 211, 401, 447, 448 Alman v. Duke of St. Albans, 1034 Almond v. Bonnell, 1376, 1919 Almy V. Daniels, 1894, 1895 Alpass z'. Watkins, 424 Alpaugh V. Roberson, 1795 Alsberry v. Hawkins, 750, 774 Alston V. Alston, 2125, 2286 V. Grant, 1200 V. Ulman, 1395 Alsworth V. Cordtz, 1636 Altemasz/. Campbell, 208 Alten V. Jaynish, 1271 Altes V. Hinckler, 47 Altham v. Anglesea, 1538 Althan's Case, 408, 446 Althof V. Conheim, 1947 Althorf V. Wolfe, 568 Alton V. Pickering, 1292, 1293, 1296, 2251, 2260 Alvis V. Morrison, 2125 Alvord V. Lent, 1514 Alvord Carriage Manf. Co. v. Gleason, 104, 136 Alwood V. Mansfield, 1212, 1230, 1231, 1233 Ambler v. Bradley, '242 V Norton, 955, 956, 957, 961, 964, 966 V. Skinner, 1103, 1184 Ambrose v, Ambrose, 1590, i6go V. Otty, 1590 Ambs V. Hill, 130 Amelong v. Dorneyer, 414, 4i6 American Buttonhole Co. v. The Burlington Assoc, 2171 A-nerican Central Ins. Co. u. McLanathan, 632 American Emigrant Co. v. Wright County, 1765 American Print Works v. Lawrence, 5, 2326 American & Foreign Christian Union v. \ount, 720, 2057, 22S8 Ames, Ex Pa.rte, 146 V. Chew, 2346 V. Norman, 1024, 1920, 1931, 1933, 1938, 1941, 1942, 1945, 1954 V. Norton, 1423 V. Port Huron L. D. B. Co., 1707, 1769 V. Richardson, 2118, 2119 V. Schuesler, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1315, 1316 Amesbury v. Brown, 445, 509 Amherst Academy v. Cowls, 1541, 1670 Amick V. Biubaker, 1227 Amonett V. Amis, 2018 Amory -v. Kamnoffsky, 1161 V. Meredith, 1837 V. Reilly, 2005 Amphlett v. Hibbard, 1425, 1426, 1432, 1450, 1475. 1478 Amsby v. Woodward, 1107, 1124 Amsden v. Blaisdell, 1340 Amst V. Alexander, 1087 Anandale v. Anandale, 95 Ancona v. Waddell, 501 Audendreid v. Woodward, 2254 Anders v. Meredith, 1905, 1969 Andersoipe v. Bennett, 947 Anderson's Appeal, 938, 946, 948 Anderson v. Baumgartner, 1995, 2105, 2147 V. Buchanan, 2217 z'. Burwell, 1782 V. Carey, 499 V. Cary, 249, 259, 261 V. Chicago Ins. Co., 1174 V. Clanch, 1883, 1889, 1894, 1896 V. Comeau, 2259 V. Critcher, 1047 V. Culvert, 1476, 1484 V. Darby, 1023, 1213, 1215, 1217 V. Dawson, 318, 329, 1836 1). Dodd, 2298 D. Duckie, 1199 V. Dugeas, 2363 •v. Greble, 310, 1890 V. Hammond, 1228, 1591 V. Harold, 998, 1042 V. Harris, 1046 V. Herold, 1017 V. Hughes, 1986 V. Jackson, 471 ZI. Kent, 1465 V. Kryter, 1085, 1197, iigS V. Layton, 2359 V. McGowan, 1752, 1814 ■u. Mather, 1577, 1798 V. Midland Railway Co., 1258, 1275, 1282, 1292 V. Neff, 2127, 2128 V. Odell, 143 1 V. Oppenheimer, io8r V. Prindle, gg6, 1257, 1282, 1327, 1335, 1340 V. Smith, 1159, 2258 V. Tannerhill, 1919, 1930, 1952 V. Taylor, 1274 V, Tydings, 588, 635 Anderson School Township v. Milroy Lodge F. & A. M., 1983 Anding v. Davis, 1699, 2045 Andrae v. Haseltine, 2235 Andrew's Case, 1080, 1807 Andrew ik Newcomb, 2020 V. Roye, 1831 V. Wrigley, 1784 Andrew's Heirs v. Brown, 786, 787 Andrews zi. jEtna Life Ins. Co., 2300 V. Alcom, 1452 %i. Andrews, 718, 8y8, 954, 957, 964 V. Blumfield, 1814 Ixxvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Andrews v. Erumfield, 337, 536 V. Bruiiefield, 1837 V. D. B. Co., 1187 V. Fiske, 2083, 2107, 21x2, 2147, 2164 V. Gillispie, 2147 z/. Hagadou, 1419 V. Hart, 2014, 2016, 2105, 2107 V. Harriot, 367, 2288 V. Hobson, 1593 V. Jones, 959 V, Page, 595, 597 V. Paradise, 1166 V. Pearson, 2358 V. Pond, 2057 V. Scotton, 2157, 2158 7/. Senter, 1867, 1868 V, Sparhawk, 1749 V. Stella, 2150 V. Thayer, 2033, 2035 V. Torrey, 2056 ■V Townsend, 2107, 2111 Androscoe-giii Bank v. Kimball, 2352 Angel V. Boner, 811 Angeil 1) Roseubury, 289, 290, 1594 Angier, Re, 8go, 891 Angier "V. Masterson, 2009 Ankeny -v. Pierce, 12 12 Anketel v. Converse, 2005 Annable v. Patch, 310, igio Annapolis R. Co. v. Gantt, 1998 Annapolis & E. R. Co. -v. Gault, 2076, 2077 Anonymous Case, 53, 57, 260, 267, 319, 372, 442, 653, 769, 1729, 1732, 2152 Ansey v. Ansey, 661 Anstice v. Brown, 94, 218, 1612, 1781 Answorth zi. Johnson, 563 Anthony 7/. Anthony, 2045 V. Lapham, 2225, 2227 V. Rees, 299, 1606 V. Rogers, 2085, 2087, 2088 V. J!lmith, 2008 V. Wade, 1481 Antomarchi v. Russel, 2237 Antoni v. Belknap, 147, 1138, 1351, 1354 Antory v. Frieze, 1245 Apethorp v. Comstock, 2331 Apperson v. Moore, 2018, 2020 Apperson's Exrs. v. Bolton, 719, 720, 869, 955 Apple V. Apple, 776, 777, 778, 8j5, 819 Applegate v. Mason, 2133 Applcton u. Boyd, 1881, 1885, 1886, 2014, 2101 V. Rawley, 680, 684, 1372 V. Warner, 383 Apthrop V. Backus, 214, 672, 774 Arbuckle v. Nehms, 2272 •V. Ward, 2293 Archambau v. Green, 2038, 2133 Archdeacon v. Bowes, 2087 Archer's Case, 1570 Archer v. Deneale, 201, 202 V. Jones, 489, 214S V. Phcenix, 2314 Archibald v. Scully, 2357 Arden v. PuUen, 1083, 1182, 1196 Ardesco Oil Co. v. North American Oil Co., 2252, 2256 Areson v. Areson, 534 Arkwright v. Cell, 2229 Arlin v. Brown, 2005 Arls V. Cummings, 2325 Armfield v. Armfield V. Moore, 2300 Armorers. Case, 327, 1948 Armory v. Fairbanks, 2157 Armour z/. Alexander, 1090, 1091, 1738 V. McMichael, 2056 Arms V. Ashley, 1589, 1592 V. Burt, 285, 1005 V. Lyman, 1979 Armstrong . Armstrong, 1878, 1884 V. Bach, 1135, 1316 V. Bicknell, 1229 Armstrong v. Caldwell, 88 V. Campbell, 1615, 1766, 1770, 1774, 1782 V. Cummings, 984 V. Kattenhorn, 994 V. Lawson, 55 V. Morrill, 1598, 1599, 1786 V. Pearce, 2363 ■v. Risteau, 211, 2299 V. Ross, 2152 V. Schermerhour, 1166 V. Sovall, 2353 ■u. Toler, 518 V. Wheeler, 1114, 1117, 1119, 1121, 2264 u. Wholesey, 1566 V. Wilson, 586, 633, 639, 669, 1367 Amett V. Munnerlyn, 1906 Arnold v. Arnold, 761, S15, 1930, 1932, 1942, 1952 V. Brown, 416, 577 V. Clark, mo V. Cord, 1676 V. Cornham, 2245 V, Crowder, 105, 107, 131, 132, 2080 V. Elmore, 69 ■V. Foot, 2228 V. Foote, 2225 -v. Gilbert, 75, 434, 1740, 1798 V. Gotshall, 1420, 1435 V. Green, 2173 z>. Hempstead, 943 V. Jack^s Exrs., 1882 V. Jones, 1424 •V, Lincoln, 308, 312 V. Mattison, 2047, 2048 u. Nash, 127?, 1294 V. Richmond Iron Works, 986, 1032, 2345 V. Ruggles, 42, 43, 817 V. Stearn, 2240 V, Stevens, 90, 2245, 2247 V. Wainwright, 786, 1963 V. Waltz, 1400 V. Woodard, 12 12 Amot V. Beadle, 1922 V. Post, 2129 V. Woodburn, 2177 Amsby v. Woodward, 1058, 1138, 1143, 1159 Amstett V. Amstett, 1951 Amwine v. Carroll, 253, 273 Arp V. Jacobs, 1406 Arques v. Wasson, 2020 Arrington v. Cherry, 1577, 1753 V. Liscom, 2175, 2297 Arrison v. Harstad, 195 Arrowsmith v. Burlingim, 2324 Arthur v. Broadnax, 2346 V. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 2330 Arto V. Maydole, 1419 Artz V. Grove, 2047 Arundel v. Steere, 2196 Arundell v. Phipps, 647 Asay V. Hoover, 6Sg, 2062 Ash's Case, 756 Ash V. Bowen, 1656 V. Cummings, 197 Ashbaugh v. Ashbaugh, 1402 Ashbury v. Sanders, 522 Ashby V. Palmer, 75, 76 Ashcroft V. Eastern Ark. Co., 283 V. Eastern Railroad Co., 283, 2240, 2361 . Ashe V. Cummins, 2327 V. De Rossett, 1247, 1248 Asherw. Mitchell, 1502, 2067 Ashfield V. Ashfield, 1030 Ashhurst's Appeal, 1748 Ashhurst v. Given, 1564, 1637, 1670, 1674 V. Potter, 77 Ashley v. Warner, 1027, 1274, 1275, 1281, 1289, 1297, 1851 Ashley's Admr. %>. Robinson, 1789, 1794 Ashmun v. Williams, 125, 140, 142 Ashton's Case, 958 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxvii Ashton V. Ingle, 1434 z'. Langdale, 42 V. Wood, 1638 Ashley v. Ashley, 2295 Ashuelot R. Co. v. Elliott, 2331 Ashurst V. Given, 254, 273, 300, 500, 1552, 1556, 1557, 1606, 1675, 1748 Askew V. Dupree, 596, 752 Aslin, Doe d., v. Summersett, 1027 Aspden v. Seddon, 93 Astley V. Essex, 265 Aston V. Aston, 544, 559, 572 7/. Britland, loog V. Smallman, 1882 Astor V. Hoyt, 6SS, Soo, 1117, 2000 V. L'Amoreux, 2264 V. Miller, 1071, 1072, 1075, 1112, 1117, 2000 Z'. Turner, 2066, 2162 Astrom z'. Hammond, 2304 Atchesoii z>. Atcheson, 1939 Atchinson v. McCulloch, 2303 V. Peterson, 2238 V. Surguine, 2148 V. Wheeler, 1465 Atherton v. Corliss, 946 V. Fowler, 2308, 2309 7'. Johnson, 212, 2295 Atkins V. Boardman, 2218, V. Bordman, 2218 V. Byrnes, 2273 V. Chilson, 1151, 1157, 1866, 1870, 1871 V. Humphrey, 1343 V. Kinnan, 2335 V. Kron, 218, 520 V. Merrill, 781 V. Sleeper, 1005, 1006. 2256 V. Yeoman, 870, 876 Atkinson, Rey 1588, 1790 Atkinson v. Atkinson, 1405, 1407, 1410, 1412, 1413, 1462, 1463, r472, 1522 V. Baker, 527, 528, 784 V. Hewett, 2086 V. Hutchinson, 433, 437 V. Miller, 2059 V. Morrissy, 811 z'. Patterson, 2101 V. Stewart, 803 Atkyn's Lessee v. Horde, 651, 1039, 1040 Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 259, 267, 2G9, 2068, 2071 V. Libby, 267, 269 Atlantic & St. L. R. R. Co. v. State, 976 Atlin 7'. Bunce, 401, 405, 408, 411, 413 Attenborough v. Thompson, 265 AttersoU v. Stevens, 553, 1152, 1153, 1228 Attomey-at-law v. Andrew, 1347 Attorney-General v. Ailesbury, 1811 V. Andrews, 1872 V. Bishop of Chester, 1688 V. Brooks, loog, 1088 V. Chambers, 2293 V. Christ's Hospital, 267, 1660, 1784, 1872 V. Crispin, 314 V. Dixie, 1664 V. Exeter, 1782 V. Federal Street Meeting-house, 1796 V. Gill, 322, 324 V. Grasett, 1690 V. Griffiths, 1037 V. Hall, 344, 1684 V. Hamilton, 1670 V. Hinxman, 1604 V. Hungerford, 1037 V. Ironmongers' Co., 1685 V. Kent, 1456 V. Landersfield, 1540 V. Marlborough, 442, 443 V. Masters of Oath Hall, 258, i860 V. Mayor of Exeter, 1783 V. Merrimack Mfg. Co., 1850 Attorney-General v. Moses, 1019 V. Mylchrest, 83, 84 V. New Castle, 1555 V. Northumberland, 1685 V Owens, 1037, 103S V. Proprietors Meeiing-house in Federal Street, 31, 35, 36, 289, 1553, 1563, IS94 V. Purmort, 2015 V. Putland, 1040 V, Rochester, 1037 V. Scott, 1559 V. Skinners' Co., 1540 V. Smith, looS, 1037 V. South Sea Co., 1037 V. Stawell, 557 V. Tudor Ice Co., 5 V, Utica Insurance Co,, 1540 V. Vigor, 2084 V. Windsor, 1638 Attwater v. Attwater, 249, 261, 262, 263, 1858 z'. Bodfish, 2219, 2244 V. Butler, 882, 907. 909 V. Manchester, 2170,2171 zi. Manchester Sav. Bank, 2073, 2169, 2170, 2171 V. Walker, 2056 Atwood V. Atwood, 711, 759, 760, 763, 819, 868 7/. Fisk, 2059 V. Norton, 998, 1013, 1323 %'. Vincent, 2005, 2177 Aubin V. Daly, 435, 790, 814, 819 Aubuchon v. Bender, 1791 Auburn & C. P. R. Co. z>. Douglass, 20, 2232 Auding V. Davis, 2175, 2176 Auer V. Penn, 1160 Aughinlaugh 7/. Coppenheffer, 1067 Aughtie V. Aughtie, 770 Augusta Ins. Co. v. Morton, 367, 720, 2057, 2288 Auld V. Butcher, 1511 AuU V. Lee, 2027, 2029 AuU Savings Bank v. AuU's Admr,, 1277, 1700 Aultman z>. Obermeyer, 646, 647, 895, 1938 Auriol V. Mills, 1069, 2263, 2265 Austen v. Halsey, 2008 Austin V. Ahearne, 1026 V. Austin, 835, 847, 861, 862, 2032 V. Burbank, 2105, 2142 V. Cambridge Parish, 1849, 1856, 1S61, 1867 V. Downer, 2040 V. Field, 1015, 1176 V. Grant, 2025 V. Hall, 1909 V. Hudson R. R. Co., 553, 2232 V. Huntsville Coal & Mining Co., 979, 983, 1002, 1017 V. Rutland, 202, 515, 1982 z'. Sawyer, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 104 V. Shaw, 1885, 2101 V. Stanley, 1378, 1445, 1454, 1457, 1460, M99 V. Stevens, 489, 514, 564, 565, 1364 V. Swaun, 948 V. Taylor, i6og V. Thompson, 1251, 1266, 1306 zj. Underwood, 1491, 1492, 1497, 1498 zi. Wilson, 1292 Auworth V. Johnson, 1067, 1068, 1153 Avans v. Everett, 1426 Aveling -v. Knife, 1876 Avelyn v. Ward, 1849 Averali v. Wade, 2155 Averill V. Guthrie, 2139 11. Taylor, 976, 2073, 2074, 2150,2169, 2172, 2173 ^ V. Wilson, 1580 Avery v. Chappel, 1648 V. Judd, 20S0, 2ogi V. Payne, 1973 V. Ryerson, 2172 Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Avery v. Scott, 1051 V. Stephens, 1490 Avon Mfg. Co. V. Andrews, 2226 Awdley v. Awdley, 77 Ayer v. Ayer, 1574, 1672, 1673 V. Emery, 1S56 V. Hawkes, 1291, 1479, 1506 V, Spring, 791, 822, 841, 842, 843, 845, 891 v. The Methodist Episcopal Church, 225, 1549 Ayers 7/ .Dixon, 2071 V. Waite, 2091 Aylesford's Case, 994 Aylett V. Ashton, 1034 Aylsworth v. Whitcomb, 1792 Aymer v. Bill, 2101, 2103, 2111 Aynsley v. Glover, 2246 V. Grover, 2248 V. Reed, 2173 Ayres v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 240 V. Husted, 2164 V. M. E. Church, 1555, 1603 •V Probasco, 1450, 1475, 1478 a*. Waite, 2095, 2175, 2174 B. Babb V. Perley, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1368, 1369, 1370 Babbitt v. Day, 823 2/.Scroggin, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1938, 1940 Babcock v. Babcock, 794, 912, 913 V. Hoey, 1450, 1479, 1488 V. Kennedy, 1027, 1028, 2065 ■v. Lisk, 2029, 2930 V. Montgomery Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 2223 z/. Scoville, 1 108, II 16 V. Wyman, 1676, 2175 Baca V. Ramos, 1962 Bache z*. Doscher, 2165, 2167 Eachino z/. Coste, 1947 Bachman v. Crawford, 1399 Back V. Andrews, 779, 1920, 1930, 1939, 1940 Backenstoss ». Stahler's Admr,, 46, 52 Backer v. Payne, 1045 Backhouse v. Bonomi, 2232 Backmanw. Crawford, 1403 Backus V. Shepherd, 2324 Bacon's Appeal, 1607, 1656, 1675 Bacon v. Bacon, 1180 V. Bowdin, 2169 V. Bowdoin, 971, 992, 1000, 1014, 2073, 2074, 2170, 2173 V. Brown, 1131, 1132, 1316, 1346, 1347 V. Cottrell, 2185 z/. Howell, 1292 V. Huntington, 1870, 1872 V. Mclntyre, 2093, 2094 V. Parker, 996, 2271 V. Rives, 1782, 1783 V. West Furniture Co., 1060, 1154, 1155 V. Woodward, 305, 308, 335 Badger v. Batavia Mfg. Co., 143 V. Holmes, 1026, 1027 ■V. Keating, 15S0, 1654 Badgley v. Bruce, 868 V. Voltrain, 1612 Badlamz'. Tucker, 1820 Badon v. Brown, 2052 Baer v. Martin, 72 Baggett V. Meux, 251, 257, 1561 Bagley z*. Freeman, 1073, 1108, 1115, 1117, nzt Bagnali v. Villar, 20S0 Bagot V. Bagot, 495 IJagshaw v. Spencer, 288, 289, 300, 373, 1583, 1595, 1606, 1693, 1856 Baher v. Harris, 1080 Bailey's Petition, 1730, 1842, 1843 Tailey v. Bailey, 291, 1662, 1699, 1798, 2050 Bailey v. Brown, 1752 V. Carten, 2075 V. Carter, 2175 V. Clark, 1242 ». Comings, 1457 V. Duncan, 782, 820, 1363, 1368, 1369 V. Fillebrown, 1234, 1267 V. Gentry, 1217 V. Gould, 2103, 2111 V. Hobson, 1903, 1906 V. Hoppin, 2301 V. Kilburn, 1149 V. Metcaff, 2131 V. Miltenberger, 197 V. Mittenberger, 2326 V. Myrick, 2151, 2181 V. Ogden, 998, 1017, 1042, 1087 V. Richardson, 2097, 2098, 2262 V. Robinson, 1717, 1766 V. Rust, 1982 V. Sisson, 1975 v. Timberlake, 2171 V. Tyrrell, 984 V. Ward, 997, 1283, 1286 V. Wells, 1159, 1 161, 1164, 2263, 2264 V. West, 718 V. White, 2357 Bailie v McWhorler, 253 Bailis V. Gale, 335 Bailley v. Litten, 910 Bain z/. Clark, T172, 1205, 1210, 1218 Bainbridge v. Blair, 1600 V. Owen, 2184 V. Wilcocks, 2056 Baines v. Barnes, 1717 Bainton v. Ward, 1825 Bainway v. Cobb, 129, 146 Baird's Appeal, 1968 Baird v. Baird's Heirs, 1671, 1913, 1957 V. Jackson, 2067 V. McConkey, 2165, 2167 V. Rowan, 1810 V. Shipman, 1194, 1195 V. Stearne, 912, 913 Baken v. Harder, 2012 Baker v. Adams, 1337 V. Armstrong, 2102 V. Baker, 737, 740, 835, 847, 851, 868, 1647, 1652 V. Bank of Louisiana, 2024 V. Bishop, 2015 V. Bridge, 305, 330, 335, 340 V. Chase, 728, 794, 795, 912 u. Collins, 2059 V. Copenbarger, 75, 1750 V. Davis, 138 V. Dayton, 892, 1462 V. Dickson, 1288 "v. Evans, 1738 V. Fetters, 925 z*. Floumey, 1363 z*. Frick, 72 V. Greenhill, 1102 V. Hale, 1215 V. Harlan, 1795 V. Heiskell, 654, 656, 677, 679, 683,2286 V. Holtzpaffell, 1179 z'. Humphrey, 1585 z'. Hunt, 284 V. Jordan, 46, 654 V. Kennett, 1030, 1031 z'. Lamb, 1920 i>. Lewis, 54 "v. Massey, 2331 z'. Matcher, 2359 ^. Mather, 1777 ^. Mattocks, 149 z'. Nail, 679, 12 16 'V, Newton, 1371 "<■'. Oakwood, 702 "V. Pierson, 213b o. Pratt, 1161 Keferences are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxix Baker v. Ramey, 1497 V. Red, 1614 z;. Scott, 40S V. Shepherd, 2147 V. Stewart, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1939, 1952, 1954 V, Swon, 2295 1}. Terrell, 2150, 2178 V. Thrasher, 1993, 2044, 2054 V. Vining, 1634, 1638, 1641, 1647, 1648, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1683, 1699 V. Wall, 380 V. Washington, 2366 V. Westcot, 217 V, Wheeler, 1926, 1962, 1963 v> Whiteside, 1044 V, Whiting, 1644, 1782 V. Willis, 3S9 V. Wind, 2038, 2039 Balder z/. Blackborn, 1023, 1024 Baldwin v. Allison, 1620, 1644 V, Bean, 353 V. Boyd, 2309 V. Breed, 113 V. Brown, 2298 V. Campfield, 1636 V. Carter, 1701 V. City ot Newark, 671, 1518 •V. Gray, 755 V. Hatchett, 2ior V. Humphrey, 1587, 1592 V. Jenkins, 2039 V. Johnson, 1888 V. Peet, 1794 V. Porter, 1598, 1785 V. Raplee, 2023 V. Rees, 1151 •u, Reiss, 1158 V. Rogers, 1431 V, Stark, 2304 V. Thompson, 975 V. Timmins, 2101 V. United States Tel. Co., 1248 V. Van Vorst, 1157 V. Walker, 1027, 1028, 1046, 1071, 1120, 2064, 2249 V. Whiting, 1967 Baldy's Appeal, 1510 Bale z'. Newton, 1791 Balfe V. West, 1183, 1191 Balford v. Crane, 915 Balgrave v. Balgrave, 1596 V. Hancock, 1692 Balir v. Van Blarcum, 534 Balkum v. Wood, 1475 Ball V. Ball, 954 v. Covington, 2251 V. Cullimore, 1259, 1278, 1290, 1294 V. Deas, 1968 V. Dunsterville, 1044 V. First National Bank of CoWngton, 2251, 2257, 2258 V. Harris, 1832 V. Palmer, 1898 V. Payne, 416, 447, 472 V. Wyeth, 1181 Ballance v. Fortier, 1308, 1338 Ballard v. Ballard, 2063 V. Burgett, 1746 V. Dyson, 2219, 2220 V. Harrison, 2207 V. Nichols, 917 V. Perry, 2365 Ballentine v. Clark, 2331 V. Poyner, 495, 554 Ballet V. Sprainger, 510, 518 Ballew V. Clark, 1032 Bailey v. WelleS, 1070 Ballin v. Dillaye, 896 Ballou V. Hale, 1905, 1924 V. Jones, 117 Balls V. Darapman, 1822 Bally V, Wells, 1074 Balmam ?■. Sliore, 314 Baltimore v. Chester, 624 V. May, 1515 V. Porter, 1804 Baltimore Annual Conference v. Schell, 1504 Baltimore & O. K. Co. v. Polly, 1853 Bambaugh v. Bambaugh, 1S81, 18^3, 1910 Bancroft v. Cambridge, 4, 5 V. Consen, 214, 672, 1622 V. Wardell, 1276, 1283, 1291, 2271 V. White, 764 Bandy v. Cartwright, 2362 Bange v. Flint, 2107 Bangs V. Smith, 1836 Bank v. Anderson, 2109 V. Arnold, 800, 801 V. Carpenter, 2001 •v. Chamberlain, 201 1 V. Finch, 2033 V. Fordyce, 1699, 1702 V. Haskie, 1008 V. Houseman, 2316 V, May, 2314 Bank of America v. Banks, 1215, 2260 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 224 Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 2014 Bank of Buffalo v. Hortwright, 2339 Bank of Columbia v. Okley, 2324 Bank of Commerce v. Lanahan, 2076 V. Owen, 803, 806. 813, 814, 817 Bank of England v. Tarleton, 1763 Bank of Greensboro v, Clapp, 2120 Bank of Indiana v. Anderson, 2104, 2106 Bank of Ithaca v. King, 1554 Bank of Lansinburgh v. Crary, 53, 54, 55, 2020 Bank of Louisville v. Hall, 1964 Bank of Metropolis v. Huttschlick, 782, 1600, 1601 Bank of Niagara v. Rosevelt, 2170 Bank of Ogdensburg v. Arnold, 1027, 2066, 2067 Bank of the Old Dominion v. McVeigh, 1512 Bank of Pennsylvania 7'. Wise, 46, 1120, 2259 Bank of Rochester v. Emerson, 2165, 2167 Bank of South Carolina v. Rose, 2133 Bank of United States v. Benning, 1777 V. Dandridge, 2014 V. Daniels, 2057 V. Donnally, 2057 V. Dunseth, 836, 874 •V. Housman, 1538, 1625 V. Huth, 1794 V. Peters, 2136, 2137 Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 1027, n6o, 1221, 1888 Bank of Waltham v. Waltham, 42 Bank of Westminster v. Whyte, 2037 Banker z/. Braker, loog, 1088 Bankes v. Le Despencer, 1692, 1740 Bankhead v. Brown, 2327 Banks v. American Tract Society, 2213, 2223 V. Carter, 1262, 1274, 1329, 1335, 1340 V. Haskie^ 1009, 1091 V. Ogden, 2293 V. Poitiaux, 224 V. Sutton, 581, 705, 708, 714, 715, 840, 1575. i704> 1736 V. Walker, 2025 V. Wilkes, 1732, 1734 Banman v. James, 999 Banning &. Taylor, 2324 Bannon v. Angier, 2246 V. Bean, 1643 V. Brandon, 1355 V. State, 198 Banrfield, Doe ex d., v, Wetton, 424 Bansiat &. Murrin, 732 Banton v. Campbell, 1919 V. Shorey, 54 Banyster 7). Trussel, 625 Baptist Association v. Hart, 1684 Ixxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Baptist Church of Hartford v. Witherell, 32, 34. 40. I5S7 Barber v. Babel, 1450, 1475, 1478, 1934 V. Gary, iSoS, i8og V. Harris, 1024, 1025, 1931, 1939, 1941, 1942, 1945, 2362 V. Root, 661, 662, 664, 771, gig, 1359, 1360, 1363, 1364, 1368, 1369, 1370 V. Rorabeck, 1500 V. Wilhams, 733, 838 Barbour v. Barbour, 721, 725, 771,783, 802,803, 919, 940 Barclay, Ex parte, 125 V. Cameron, 354 V. Hendrick, 1881, 1968 V. Pickles, 1 171 V. Wainwright, 121 1 Barcroft v. Snodgrass, 1965 Bard v. Elston, 996 Barden v. Grady, 2155 Bardish v. Schenck, 1229 Bardstown R. Co. v. Metcalfe, 1722 Bardswell v. Bardswell, 347, 1632 Bardwell v. Howe, 2060 Barford v. Street, 1825 Barger v. Hobbs, 501 Barheydt v. Barheydt, 332, 342, 533, 536 Barhydt v. Burgess, 2263, 2264 Baring v. Nash, 515, 1973, 1984 Barker, Re, 95 Barker v. Allen, 999 V. Barker, 675, 697, 1372, 1623 V. Bates, 99 V. Bell, 1997, 1998, 2119, 2126, 2133 V. Blake, 869, 870 V. Cobb, 1857 V, Crandall, 1605 V. Dale, 976,983, 1138, 1150 V. Dayton, 195, 1407, 1462, 1471 V. Flood, 2096 ■V. Frye, 1691 V. Greenwood, 300, i553>i5S3» i597» 1606, 1607, 1797 V. Keate, 1566 V. Parker, 791, 815, 820, S26, 8gi, 927 V. Salmon, 2303 V. State ex rel. Mills, 2 •v. Taylor, 743 Barkley v. Lane's Exrs., 1592 Barksdale v. Finney, 42 V. Garret, 717, 871, 872, 930 Barksworth v. Young, 1691 Barlett v. Prescott, 2207 Barley v. Cook, 1883 Barlow v. Bateman, 265 V. Bell, 1310, 1350 V. Gaines, 2081 V. Lambert, 195 V. Rhodes, 2215, 2356 V. Salter, 322 V. Wainwright, 1014, 1264, 1295, 1300, 1301, 1303, 1312, 1313, 1322, 1325, 1326, 1337, 1342, 1343 Bam V. Clark, 538 Baniaby t'. Barnaby, 1030 Barnard v. Bailey, 348 V. Eaton, 2017 V. Edwards, 870, 873, 930, 931 V. Godcall, 2264 V. Jewett, 1635, 1653 •V. Norwich R. Co., 201S V. Poor, 567 z'. Pope, 1913, 1982 V. Whipple, 31 Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's Heirs, 2307 Bamardiston -v. Fane, 1870 Barnes 7* . Addy, 162 1, 1761 V. Allen, 2282 V. Barnes, 56, 2213 u, Boardman, 2100, 2:03, 2127, 2128 V. East London W. W. Co., 1038 V. Ehrman, 2159 Barnes v. Gay, 781, 804, 828, 1491, 149? V. Grant, 1630 V. Gray, 777, 814 V. Huson, 234 z'. Irwin, 1829 v. Lee, 2084 V. Lloyd, 1919, 2242 V. Mawson, 88 V. Mott, 2154 V. Raester, 2155 V. Shinholster, 1281, 2261 V. Simms, 1702 V. Taylor, 1589 V, Underwood, 585, 670 V. White, 1444 Bamet v. Bamet, 836, 874, 876, gii V. Dougherty, 1646, 1653 Barnett's Appeal, 254, 299, 500, 1560, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1655, 1656, 1674, 167s, 1682, 1748, 1753 Bamettz/. Barnes, 1044 V. Barnett, 2332 z/. French, 237 v. Gaines, 729 •u. Goings, 962 z/. Harshbarger, 646 V. Johnson, 20, 2223 V. Knight, 1513 V, Mendenhall, 1475, 1476, 1484 V. Nelson, 2184, 2185 V. Riser, 2004 Barney v. Baltimore, 1983 V. Frowner, 841, 842, 843 V. Gay, 1497 V. Keith, 1080, loSi V. Keokuk, 69, 2294 V. Leeds, 1378, 1399, 1403 V. Little, 2366 V. Myers, 2181 V. Patterson, 1751 V. Saunders, 1665, 1720 V. Sutton, 2120, 2365 V. Trowner, 870 Barnfather v. Jordan, 2265 Banihart z>. Campbell, 1924 Barns V. Hatch, 1016 Bamum v. Barnum, 508, 509, 757, 1682, 16S3 V. Childs, 1700 v. Landon, 1026, 1046, 1922 V. Mayor of Baltimore, 265 Baron v. Sollivellos, 1425 Barr v. Doe ex d. Binford, 1225 V. Doe ex d, Burford, 975 V. Galloway, 600, 603, 613 V. Gratz, 206, 207, 209, 1917 V. Gratz's Heirs, 1752 V. Graves, 1225 v. Valanstine, 2176 Barr, Lessee of, z'. Galloway, 601, 602, 702 Barrage v. Merchants' Ex. Co., 2342 Barrell v. Barrell, 1894 V. Handrick, 1701 V. Joy, 1588, 1590, 1592, 1600, i6gr Barren v. Barren, 1651, 1938 Barren Creek Ditching Co. v. Beck, 1944 Barrett's Appeal, 1584 Barrett v. Bamber, 1621, 1623 V. Bedford, 1102 V. Blackman, 2148 V. Blagrave, 1107 V. Buxton, 1033 V. Churchill, 890 z/. Failing, 770, 771, gig, 920 V. French, 1548, 2316, 2319 V. Gomesserra, 1758 V. Hinckley, 2106 V. Marsh, 1591, 1824 V. Richardson, 1510 V. Rockport Ice Co., 74 V. Sims, 1502, 1504, 151S Barroilhet v. Battelle, 2002 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxi Barron v. Martin, 2095, 2174 V. Paulling, 2088 Barrow v. Barrow, 959 V. Isaacs, 1091, 1871 V. Richards, 267,268, 269, 1184, 2214 Barruso v. Wodan, 1854 Bany v. Adams, 2092 V. Edgenorth, 202 V. Glover, 1154 V. Lambert, 1700 V. Marriott, 1721 V. Nesham, 1242 V. Shelby, 535 Barteau v. West, 2206 Bartee v. Thompkius, S90 Bartels v, Creditore, 1164, 2263 Bartenback, Re, 8go Barthe v. Lines, 899 Barthell v. Syverson, 2086 Bartholomew v. Edwards, 2296 •V. Hamilton, 143 v. Hook, 1408, 1409 V. West, 1415, 1421, 1422, 1424 Bartle's Case, 234 Bartles v. Nunan, 646 Bartlett v. Baker, 1300 V. Bartlett, 1537, 1589 V. Brake, 9S7 V. Downes, 1743 •u. Drake, 1365 V. Drew, 1760 V. Gouge, 760, 788, 831 V. Harlow, 1492, 1924, 1967 V. Jones, 1Z43, 1244 •V. Pickersgill, 2035 ZK Van Zandt, 726, 746 V. Wood, 133 Bartol v. Calvert, 969, 1006 Barton's Estate, 1721 Barton v. Barton, 271 V. Briscoe, 1844 V. Drake, 1475, 1476, 1482, 1484, i486 V. King, 225 V. Williams, 1246, 1247 Barziza v. Story, 1643 Bascom v. Albertaon, 1603 V. Smith, 520, 810, 1580, 2097 Bashaw v. State, 595 Bashford v. Pierson, 2339 Baskins* Appeal, 328 Baskins v. Giles, 645 Bass V. Edwards, 2220 V. Estill, 3366 V. Scott, 1550, 1560, 1577, 1672, 1673 Basse v. Gallegger, 2051 V. Mitchell, 2357 Basset v. Basset, 618, 646, 967, 2028, 2046 Bassett v. Bradley, 2166 V. Brown, 987 V. Mason, 810, 2096, 2157 V. Messner, 1388, 1390 Bastow, Doe ex d., a. Cox, 1256, 1265, 1275, 1278, 1294, 1295, 1318, 1326 Ba'tchelder z'. Batchelder, 1275, 1307, 134a z/. Dean, 970, 971, 1003 ■V. Sanborn, 2212 V. Sturgis, 730, 1095 Batcheler v. Middleton, 2171 Batchelor v. Macon, 346 V. Whitaker, 284 Bate V. Scales, 1733 Bateman v. Allen, 1024 V. Bateman, 1806 V. Hotchkin, 560 V. Pool, 1488 Baten's Case, 21 Bates 7/. Austin, 1146, 1309 V. Ball, 1033 £<. Bates, 7f I, 816, 826, 886, 1411, 1425, 1686, 1687 V. Coe, 1997 V. Conrow, 1222 Bates V, Dandy, 1360 V. Equitable F.& M. Ins. Co., 2116 V. Graves, 271 V. Hurd, 1589, 1592 V, Miller, 2146 V. NelUs, 2274 V. Norcross, 207, S84, 2365 V. Phinney, 2247, 2271 V. Ruddick, 2151, 2155, 2174, 2181 V. Seely, 1887, 1920, 1931, 1940, 1952 V. Shraeder, 629, 639, 640 •v. Sparrell, 31, 32 Batesville Institute v. Kauffmau, 1660, 2106 Bath V. Valdez, i8g8 Batin v. Bigelow, 522 Batstone Z7. tlater, 1581, 1647 Battersbee v. Farrington, 64S Batterton v. Chiles, 1973 Batteste v. Maunsell, 1693 Battey v. Hopkins, 1569 V. Snook, 1996, 2040, 2050 Battin v. Woods, 1618 Battle V. Petway, 1577, 1578, 1741, 1742, 1753 Battle Square Church v. Grant, 324, 371 Batty V. Snook, 1996, 216S Baugh V. Barrett, 1428 Baugher v. Merryman, 2047, 2052, 2055, 2:68 V. Nelson, 1517 V. Wilkins, 1079, 1081 Baughman v. Baughman, 408 Baum V. Baum, 759 V. Grisby, 2006, 2007 Baumgartner v. Guessfield, 1646 Bavington v. Clarke, 1671, 1699, 1978 Baxendale v. McMurray, 2238, 2240 Baxter v. Boyer, 965 V. Bradbury, 355 V. Browne, 993 V. Bush, 1030 V. Child, 2050 V. Dear, 2038, 2039 V. Dyer, 2063 V, Gilbert, 21 10 V. Knowles, 2073 ?'. Lansing, 1140, 1872 V. Mclntire, 2027, 2029, 2133 V. Rodman, 1240 » V. Taylor, 550, 553, 567 Bay V. Gage, 671 V. Williams, 2166 Bay City Gaslight Co. v. Industrial Works, 68 Bay State Bank v. Kiley, 127^ Bayard v, Colefax, 1756 tK Morshew, 883 Bayer z*. Cockrill, 1563 Bayles v. Baxter, 1651 Bayley ». Bailey, 2041, 2119 V. Fitzmaurice, 999, 1252 , V. Glenn, 2106 V. Gould, 2104 V. Greenleaf, 2005, 2006 V. Homan, 1869 V. Lawrence, 1168, 1178 V. McGraw, 2138 V. Mollard, 2281 V. Richardson, 1123 Baylies v. Payson, 1665, i68g, 1691 V. Peyton, 1690 V. San Antonio Nat. Bank, 1510 V. Sinex, 1211 Bayne v. United States, 1761 Baynton v. Finnall, 1024, 1033, 1364 Bazemore v. Davis, 1893, 1909 Beach v. Beach, 1595, 1707, 1713, 1742 V. Campbell, 1758 V. Child, 1905 zi. Parish, 1083, 1175, 1177 z). Frankenberger, 2206 V. Hollister, 1887, 1951 V. Miller, 587 V. Nixon, 1 138 c. Packard, 1698, 1702, 2349 Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Beach 71. Sliaw, 2169 Feachcroft v. Beachcroft, 307 Beal v. Miller, 918, 942 z'. Warren, 1625 Beale v. Bealc, 618 V. Holmes, 536 V. Knowles, 1364, 1366, 1367 Beall z/.. Holmes, 306^ 332 V. Wliite, 2018 V. Williamson, 2056 Bealor v. Hahn, 663, 664 Beals V. Providence Rubber Co., 1102 Beamish v. Beamish, 595 V. Cox, 1311, 1339 V. Hoyt, 585, 670 7/. Overseers, 689, 2062 Beau V. Boothby, 2096 V. Coleman, 72, 2361 7'. Dickerson, 1071, 1078 z/. Edge, 984, 2273 V. French, 281, 283, 284 z>. Mayo, 1094 V. Morgan, 2346 V. Murphy, 2231 V. Pettingill, 2302 V. Smith, 1481 V. Valle, 1607 V. Whitcomb, 2157 Bear v. Bitzer, 46, 52 V. Snyder, 712, 762, 819, 868 V Whisler, 15S8, 1852 Bearce v. Barstown, 2071 V. Jackson, 206 Beard v. Beard, 647 V. Blum, 1502 V. Federy, 217, 218 7/. Fitzgerald, 2153, 2178, 2180 V. Griggs, 961 V. Knowlton, 712 V. Knox, 711, 918, 943 V. Linthicum, 1649 z/. Murphy, 2231, 2232, 2233 71. Nuthall, 953, 966 V. State, 2020 Beardman z*. Wilson, 1057, iiti, in2, inS, "59 Beardslee 7'. Beardslfie, 761, 7S0, 815, 820, 883, 884, 885 V. French, 57 V. TJnderhill, 730 Beardsley 7/. Knight iggi V. Ontario Bank, 61, 113 z'. Selectmen of Bridgeport, 1604 Bears v. Ambler, 1201 V. Covilland, 1923 Bearss v. Ford, 2168 Beatson 7/. Beatson, 1791 Beattie v. Butler, 756 Beatty v. Gregory, 1280 , 7/. Mason, 2296, 2297 z/. Wray, 1889 Beaty v. Bordwell, 1891, 1892 V. Gibbons, 82 71. Harkey, 1870 Beaufort v. Berty, 1021 z'. Collier, 1361 Beaumont's Case, 389, 756 Beaumont v. Thorpe, 1626 Beavnii ?'. Delahay, 540 7'. McDonnell, 987, 1034 7'. Speed, 1467 Heavans z'. Briscoe, 539, 540 Beaver 71. Lane, 1363, 1369 7'. Nutter, 2235 V. Snyder, 868 Beaver Falls Water Power Co. v. Wilson, 88g Beavers 7'. Smith, 729, 814, 841, 844, 858 Bebb V. Crowe, 1436 Becar 7/. Fues, 971, 978, 997, mi, 2260 Berk's Estate, /?e, 221, 222 Beck V. Allison, 1083 V, McGillis, 216, 217 Beckw. Rebow, 109, 121, 127 V. Uhrich, 1638, 1642, 1643. 17631 1779 Becker z/. Becker, 1514 V. De Forest, 979, 993 V Werner, 1140, 1141, 1158 Beckerdite v. Arnold, 1231 Beckett 7t. Cordley, 2124 Beckford v. Beckford, 1647 V. Wade, 1783, 1784, 2176 Beckwith v. Boyce, 115, 122 7/. Howard, 1064 V. Windsor Mfg. Co., 2141 Beddingsford's Case, 864, 867 Bedell's Case, 1557 Bedell z/. Constable, 1021, 1022 V. McClellan, 2160 V. Shaw, 252, 489 Bedford v. Bedford, 628, 639 V. Kelley, 1213 V. McEtherron, 1271 V. McEtherrow, 1125, 1150, 1310 V. Terhune, 1073. 1077, 1109, 1112, 1118, 1H9, 1121, 1122, 1124, 1159, ii6i, 1 162 Bedill's Case, 2316 Bedingfield v. Onslow, 2248 Bedlow V. New York Floating Dry Dock Co., 1306 Bedon v. Bedon, 3S3 Beebe v. Coleman, 2251 V. Griffing, 2279, 2286 V. State, 2328 Beech v. Miller, 588 Beecherz'. Baldy, 1475, 1502, 1503 7r. Buckingham, 1887 V. Hicks, 678, 6g8, 1372, 1709 V. Parmele, 1351 Beeder z/. Meeker, 2120 Beegle v. Wentz, 1634, 1650 Beekman v. Boiisor, 1603, 1604 7>. Frost, 2 1 19 7f. Hudson, 819 V. Lansing, 50 V. People, 1549, 1603 7/. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 197, 2327, 2328 Beekman Fire lus. Co. v. ist Meth. Church 2031 Beeler v. Dunn, 1727 Beeman's Appeal, 2279 Beenel v. Beenel, 1S94 Beer v. Beer, 1026 Beers zf. Beers, 553 V. Broome, 1016 z/. Haughton, 1517, 1518 z/. Lyons, 1573 V. St. John, 122, 145, 565 71. Strong, 740 V. Williams, J162 Beeston v. Weate, 2229 Beezeley z'. Burgett, 2251, 2258 Began v. O'Reilly, 2023 Begbie v. Crook, 1788, 1844 Behman v. barto, logi Beidler 7/. Fish, 1160 BeiU 7;. Chesseu, 2251 Beinie v. Beinie, 675 Belch V. Harvey, 2176 Belcher, Ex parte, 132, 133 V. Belcher, 1754 ■V. Butler, 2139 V. Costello, 2107 Belchier v. Parsons, 1713, 1714, 1723, 1728 Belden v. Meeker, 2109 V. Seymour, 1698, 1700 V. Shade, 2170 Beldiii; v. Cushing, 142 Belford v. Belford, 778 V. Crane, 670, 679, 792, 1638, 1640 Belfour v. Weston, 1179, 1181, 1182 Belk V. Massey, 2365 Belknap v. Trimble, 1988 Bell V. Adams, 2301 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxiii Bell ». Bell, 1782, 1783, 1784 7t. Deas, 1831 t/. Denson, 2298 V. Ellis' Heirs, 1291 7'. Farmers' Bank of Ky., 2035 V. Fleming, 2029, 2 113 z>. Gilmore, 2167 V. Hany, 1280 7'. Holford, 1795 V. Hartley, 2295 V. Josselyn, 1194, iig6 1'. Keefe, 2363 V. Kennedy, 1456 V. Lent, 2060 V. Mayor of New York, 783, 8cxd, 8ot, 802, 803, 945, 2000, 2075, 2c88, 2185, 2272, 2282 v. Morse, 2103, 2111 V. Nealy, 733,' 887, 892, 894, S95, 921 V. New York, 511, 925 V. Norfolk S. R. Co., 199 v. Norris, 1319 V, Ohio & P. R. Co., 2191,2192, 2194, 2201 V. Perkins, 671 V. Phyn, 1964 ' V. Pierce, 2034 z'. Red Rock, 2303 v. Scammon, 237, 307, 308,309,312, 322, 323. 332, 34O) 342i 470. 2315, 2316, 2318, 1.^19 V. Scannan, 2359 V. Schwarz, 1454 V. Shrock, 2148 v, Simpson, 2107 zf. Smith, 2303 z>. Tenny, 811 V. Thomas, 2126 V. Twilight, 744, 2301 V. Western Ins. Co., 2115 V. Wilson, 84, 94 V. Woodward, 810, 2097, 2212 Bell Co. V. Alexander, 303, 328, 335, 336 Bellamy v. Bellamy. 1620, 1794 v. Buckenden, 2089 V. Burrow, i6go Bellas V. McCarthy, 278, 2365 Bellasis v. Burbirchie, 979 V. Burbrick^979 Bellerz*. Robinson, 994, 996 Bellias v. Ermine, 271 Bellinger z/. Shafer, 1726 BelHs v. Bellis, 2345 Belloc V. Davis, 1058, 2031 z*. Rogers, 2145, 2146, 2151; .Bellow V, New York Floating Dry Dock Co., 61 Bellows 7>. Burlington, C. & M. R. Co., 1028 7'. Sackett, 1199, 2232 V. Todd, 2342 7/. Wells, 52 Bells ?/. Gillispie, 416 Belmont zr. Cuman, 266, 2068, 2069, 2179, 2180 V. O'Brien, 1549, 1798, 1807, 1808, 1809, 2093, 2094 Belote 7'. Morrison, 2045 7'. White, 1709 Belt V. Ferguson, 794, 913 Belton V. Avery, 2040 Bemer z'. Call, 924 Bemis v. DriscoU, 1425 V. Leonard, 1005, 2256 V. Wilder, 1050, 1057, 1058 Benbow v. Townsend, 1649 Benden v. Manning, 1183 Bender 7/ . Fleurie, 411 Bendred v. Griffigh, logi Benedict 7/. Bunnell, 1457 7'. Gaylord, 1883, 1934 7'. Gilman, 2088, 2171, 2185 7'. Howard, 1905 7/. Martin, 1194 Benedict 7/. Morse, 1294, 1296, 1350, 1354 V. Torrent, 1989 V. Webb, 1450, 1478 Benesch 7/. Clark, 317, 319, 320, 336,337,487, 536 Benett v. Costar, 2197 Benfey v. Congdon, 1131, 1136, 1278, 1285, 1351 Bengough v. Eldridge, 1693 Benham v. Rowe, 1755, 2088,2090, 2163 Benjamin z'. Ehnira R. Co., 2018, 2019 V. Heeney, 1083 Benkert v. Jacoby, 338 Benneck v. Whipple, 1297 Bennell v. Chancellor, 1032 Benner 7/. Evans, 877 Bennet z'. Bennet, 745 V. Eullock, 1903, 1904, 1917 V. Child, 1920, 1930, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1945. 1952. 1971 7'. Davis, 654, 656, 6S4, 699 V. Harms, 721, 750 Bennett, jE'jr/ar^^, 1771 V. Atherton, 1082 V. Austin, 1620, 1643, 1644, 2101 V. Bates, 2109 7'. Bennett, 1360, 1367 V. Bittle, 1128, 1168 v. CoUey, 1782, 1783 zf. Cutler, 1382 V. Davis, 6S0 V. Garlock, 1577, 1784 z/. Holbeck, 1888 Tf. Hudson, 1637 V. Mattingly, 2149 v. Pierce, 1320 7*. Plummer, 2064 V. Robinson, 271, 1274, 1282, 1284, 1347, 1350. 1355 V. Solomon, 2106, 2349 V. Tankerville, 426 V. Union Bank, 1992, 2014 V. Van Syckel, 1089 7'. Waller, 2301 zi. Williams, 1662 V. Womack, 1065 7'. Wyndham, 1817 Doe d., V. Long, 1309 Benning v. Benuing, 965 V. Nelson, 1794 Bennock v. Whipple, 1136, 1266, 1285, 1297, 1304. 2039 Benoist v. Mundin, 727 Bensell v. Chancellor, 986 Bensley 7/. Burdon, 2358 Benson v. Aitken, 1460 V. Miners' Bank, 89 V. Morrow, 69 V. Muuroe, 1180 V. Scott, 790 V. Suarez, 1199, 2232 Bent z/. Stamford, 76 7/. Weeks. 740 Eentham z/. Smith, 183 1 Bentley v. Barton, 976 V. Mackay, i6go Zf. Oldfield, 2 7'. Phelps, 2046, 2048, 2049 V. Sill, 1128, 1166, 1168 z'. Vanderheyden, 2070 V. Whittlemore, 2134 Benton 7'. Fay, 1248 z/. Hatch, 2172 V. Kent, 2139 V. Shreeves, 2136, 2150 Benyon v. Madison, 314 Eepp V. Fox, 1961 Beppers' Will, 1837 Berberick z>. Fritz, 2047 Berdan v. Sedgwick, 2060 Berden v. Van Riper, 1729 Berg V. Ingalls, 1952, 1953 V. McLafferty, 1897 kxx IV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Bergen v. Bennett, 1805, 1806, i8ro, 1S26, 1832, 1834, 1835, 1842, 1843, 2120 Berger v. Duff, 1663, 1667, 1841, 2159 Bergner v. Palethrop, 992 Bergoyne v. Spurling, 2127 Berkeley v. Hardy, 1805 V. Rider, 347, 1600 Berley v. Rampacher, 1514 V. Taylor, 160D Bemal v. Hovious, 1234, 1235, 1239 Bernhardt v, Lymbumer, 2153, 2154 Bernard's Case, 576 Bernard v. Bougard, 1653 V. MiushuU, 1627, 1628, 1633 Bemecker v. Miller, 1908, 1913 Bernstein, In re, 1787 V. Humes, 2083 Berrellz/. Sabine, 2052 Berridge v. Glassey, 969 Berrien v. Berrien, 1590 V. Conover, S73 V. McLane, 1662 Berrigan v. Fleming, 1920, 1933 Berringer 7/, Cobb, 1288 V. Schaefer, 26S Berrington v. Casey, 1000 Berry 7/. Boggess, 1497 V. Bo wen, 1040 V. Dobson, 1386, 1394 V. Hall, 693, 694, 700 V. Liudley, 13 10, 1323 V. Mutual Ins. Co., 2003, 2036,2120, 2123, 2124 V. Rigler, 2358 V. Taunton, 1250 V. Waring, 1697 V. Whitney, 2069 V. Williamson, 1609 Berryman v. Potter, 2170 Berthelemy z/. Johnson, 517 Berthold v. Fox, 1993, 1999, 2076, 2078 V. Holman, 1999 Bertie v. Beaumont, 128S V. Falkland, 1857, 1858 Bfertles z/. Nunan, 670, 1024, 1920, 1933, 1942, 1945, 1950, igsr, 1952, 1953 Bertram v. Cook, 1148, 1218, 1219 Bessell v. Landsberg, 1336, 1337 Bcsser v. Hawthron, Sii, 2000, 2077, 2078 Besson v. Cribble, 751 Best V. Allen, 1450, 1473, 1475, 1477 V. Gholson, 1479, 1506 V. Given, 2343 Bethellw. McCool, 1903, 1904 Bethlehem v. Annis, 1S49, 1S70, 2030, 2032 V. Perseverance Fire Co., 1505 Bettinger v. Baker, 539 Bettison v. Budd, 1214, 1220 Betts V. Brown, 2296 V. Lee, 62 V. Ratliff, 1234 V. Union Bank, 2349 V. Union Bank of Maryland, 1698 V. Wirt, 2279 V. Wise, 706, 711 Beusen v. Mayor of Albany, 2335 Bevan v. Hayden, 1483, 1514 V. Pope, 832 Bevans v. Briscoe, 1206 Beverly's Case, 1032, 2344 Beverly v. Burke, 212, 517, 2295 V. Lincoln Gas Light & Coke Co., 1332 Beverson's Estate, 759 Bevins v, Cline, 1938 Bewick V. Whitfield, 575 Bexwell v. Christie, 1770 Bibb V. Balser, 2126 V. Bibb, 447, 468 Bibby v. Carter, 2232 Bible Society v. Pendleton, 1685 Bicket V. Morris, 2228 Btc!;ford -v. Daniels, 2039 Bickley v. Biddle, 890 Bickuell v. Bicknell, 2004 iv, Byrnes, 2167 Biddel v. Brizzolara, 2178 Biddle iV. Hussman, 1127, J129, 1167, 1170, 1171, 2250, 2268 zi. Reed, 1182 Biddulph V. Biddulph, 94, 434 V. Lees, 417 Bierer's Appeal, 960 Bierne v. Bieme, 687 Bigden v. Vallier, 1878 Bigelow 7'. Bush, 2150 V. Cassidy, 2136 V. Collamore, 1099 V. Finch, 976 V. Forrest, 278 V. Foss, 2302 V. Hubbard, 729, 898, 1092, 1093 V. Jones, 211, 1915 V. Kinney, 1031, 2011 V. Littlefield, 1978 V. Pritcbard, 1510 V. Shaw, 68, 71 V. Striiigfellow, 2171 V. Topliff, 1030, 1923, 2001, 2037 V. Wilson, 1005, 2063, 2112, 2256 Biggers v. Bird, 2046 Biggs V. Brown, 1208 V. Farrell, 982 Doe d., V. White, 1039, 1040 Bigler z*. Furman, 1149, 1213 V. National Bank of Newburgh, 125 Rill V. Cureton, 1791 Billan v. Hercklebrath, 770, 771, 919 Billings, Re, 219 Billings V. Baker, 583, 587, 651, 660 V. Billings, 310 2'. Canney, 1314 V. Clinton, 1646, 1648 V. Hauver, 2014 V. Sprague, 2177 V. Taylor, 89, 494, 561, 742, 8u, 812, 853 V. Tucker, 983 Eillingsly v. Mersey, 982 Bills V. Mason, 1496, 1504 Bingham's Case, 432 Bingham v. Barley, 103 1 V. Clanmonis, 1788 V. Jones, 1S42 V. Jordan, 2125 Blnnerman v. Weaver, 271, 1858 Binney's Case, 44, 224 Binzel v. Grogan, 1385 Birch V. Wiight, 1121, 1300, 1308 Bircher z^. Parker, 147, 118S, 1315, 1316, 1348 * Bird V. Bird, 883, 1895 V. Decker, 2062, 2063, 2064 V. Gardner, 805, 817, 830 V. Greville, 1055 V. Higginson, 2250 V. Keller, 2175 V. Kellow, 2075 V. Wilkinson, 2040 Birdsall v. Patterson, 2060 V. Tieman, 268 Birke v. Abbott, 2166 Birmingham v. Empire Ins. Co., 1224 V. Kirwan, 935, 956, 965 Bimey v. Wilson, 804, S26 Birt V. Barlow, 758 Birtwhistel, Doe ex d., v. Vardill, 36S, 369, 719, 2057, 2058 Bisbee's Lessee z/. Hall, 974, 976, 1225 Biscoe V. Perkins, 288, 299, 300, 1594, 1605, T712 Bishop v. Bedford Charity, 1196, 1202 * V. Bishop, 52,96, 103, 105, 119, 136, 567 V. Blair, 1363, 1370, 1376, 1904 V. Boyle, 7o8,-7i4, 744, 745, 789, 8S5, 891, 922, 923 V. Doty, 1233, 1235, 1239 References are 10 pages TABLE OF CASES. Ix xxsv Bishop V. Douglass, 2o6g 7'. Howard, 1265, 1317, 1324 7'. Hubbard. 1426, 1482, 1501, 1504 V. Lalouette's Heirs, 1212 ) V. Schneider, 2119, 2123, 2125, 2364, 2366 V. Trustees, 1199 V. Wall, 1S36 Bishop of St. Albans v. Battersby, 1065 BisKind 7f. Hewett, 864,2006 Bismark Bldg. & Loan Assoc, u. Bolster, 974, 975. 976 Biss V. Smith, 417 Bissell V. Bissell, 596 V. Kellogg, 2060 V. Penrose, 2015 V. Taylor, 727 nitner v. Brough, 729, 1093 ' Bittin^er v. Baker, 45, 46, 1234 1 Bixby ZK Whitney, 1865 Bizzell v. Nix, 2004 Black's Appeal, 1964 Black 7/. Black, 1963 V. Cregg, 2002 V. Curran, 1381, 1477, 1515 ZK Dressell, 2013 V. Galway, 2152 I'. Gerichten, 2171 V, Gilmore, 1080 V. Hills, 1031 V. Kuhlmau, 715, 818 ■V. Legion, 103 3 •V. Ligon, 1037 V. Lindsay, 1899, 1900 ■u. Morse, 2179, 2180 Blackburn's Estate, 888 Blackburn v. Crawford, 596 z'. Gre^on, 2004 V. Knigbt, 1384 V. Randolph, 2331 7'. Stables, 1693 V. Warwick, 2051 Elackerby v. Holton, 2359 Blackford v. Christian, 1717 Blackinton v. Blackinton, 964 Blacklaw c. Lans, 1371 Blackledge v. Nelson, 2153 Blackman "v. Holms, 2327 V. Wheaton, 1514 Blackmer z/. Phillips, 1751 Blackmon t/. Blackman, 933 V. Blackmon, 956 Blackmore v. Broadman, 1008, 1075, 1076, 1088 V. Gregg, 1915 Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 239, 240, 246, 249, 256, 259, 263, 269, 273, 1857, 1S60 BJackwell v. Bamett, 1993 V. Wilkinson, 434 Blagge V. Miles, 202, 311, 1836, 1S37 Blagrave v. Blagrave, 1797 Elain v. Everett, 1317 V. Stewart, 2364 Blaine v, Harrison, 718, 733, 734, 735, 736, 741, 792, 793, 907 Blajr V. Bass, 2104, 2106 V. Claxton, 1167 V. March, 2 151 z>. Nugent, 1782 V. Smith, 2300 V. Thompson, 858 V. Ward, 2113 V. White, 2107 V. Williams, 1511 Blake, Re, 1562 Blake v. Anscombe, 738, 1605 V. Baker, 1102 V, Blake, 76, 1691 V. Clark, 1014 V. Coats, 1230, 1231 V. Colins, 297 V. Crowninshield, 2256 V. Everett, 2219 %'. Ferris, 1194, iigs Blake v. Fish, 2355 V. Flatley, 1485, i486 V. Foster, 2174, 2301 V. Irwin, 1825 7'. Jones, 42, 1697 V. Nutter, 824, 1957 V. Peters, 231 V. Respass, 133 V. Sanderson, 1058, 1114, 1117, 1156,2262, 2265 1/. Williams, 367, 720, 2057, 2105, 2107, 2288 Blakely z/, Calder. 1980, 1982 Blakeman z/, Blakeman, 2331 Blakemore v. Tabor, 2024 Blakeuey w. Ferguson, 781, 831, 892 Blaker v. Anscombe. 542 Elakeslee ^', Mobile Ins. Co., 2300 Blakey v. Albert, 2159 Rlakley v. Smith, 999 Blamire v. Geldart, 314 Blanchard -j. Baker. 2225 V. Blanchard, 316, 1808 7'. Blood, 1371 7'. Bridges, 2222, 2247 7'. Coohdge, J242 7'. Kenton, 2047, 2131 V. Lampert, 596 7'. Moulton, 2296 &. Raines, 2272 ■V. .Sheldon, 1594 V. '^ler. 23SS Blanchard^ Factory cr. Warner, 234 Bland v. Bland, 347, 1627, 1632, 1684 V. Lipscombc, 2214 Blande zk Asher, 1463 Blandford v. Blandford, r88o Blaney v. Pearce, 1998, 2062, 20■J^ Blaukard zk Galdy, 149 Blankeiiship zk Douglas, 1634 Blantin v. Whitaker, 1219 Blantou v, Taylor, 792 Blashford z'. Duncan, 13SC Blasini v, Blasim, 596 Blatch V. Milder, 1614 Blatchford v. WooUey, 1826 Blatchley zk Coles, 1253 Blauvelt z). Ackermau, 1620 Bleakney •&. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank, 67a Bleecker v. Hennerson, 737 z/. Hennion, 731 V. Smith, 1057, 1058, 115s, 1156 Blessing?;. House, 1911 Blethen v. Dwinal, 2093, 2146, 2173 ZT. Towle, 107, 108, 129 Blevins zi. Baker, 1902 V. Rogers, 2004 zf. Smith, 891 Biewett V. Coleman, 1922 Bligh V. Brent, 42, 43, 44, 45 Blight V. Banks, 2153 z'. Schenck, 1786 Blight's Lessee z'. Rochester, 216, 1160, 1214, 1222, 1241 Blish V. Harlow, 1274 Bliss V. American Bible Society, 1555 V. Brainard, 2056 V. Qark, 1504 zi. Collins, 2269 z}. Connecticut R. Co., 1032 ZK Greeley, 21 z/. Kennedy, 224S 7'. Matteson, 75, 1623 V. Sheldon, 967 ZK Smith, 1550, 1551, 1566 ZK Whitney, 129, 130, 145, 146, 1187 Bloch V. Isham, 2235, 2236 Blockley v. Fowler, 2163 l^lodget V. Brent, 834, 891 Blont z}. Winter, 939 Blood ». Blood, 703, 798, 815, 821, 851, 2364, 2366 Ixxx VI TABLE OF CASES. References Eire to pages Blood V. Goodrich, 1026, 1042 Bloodgood V. Clark, 506 V. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 2327, 2328 Bloodworth v. Stevens, 2250, 2252, 2257, 2259 Eloom V. Gate, 2333 V. McGehee, 2272 V. Noggie, 2121 V. Van Renssellaer, 2160, 2164 V. Welsh, 40, 51 Bloomer's Appeal, 1662 Bloomer z^. Spittle, 2331 V. Waldrou, 1663, 1810, 1S32 Bloomingdale v. Barnard, 2138 V. Bowman, 21H Blore V. Sutton, 999 Blossom V. Blossom, 785, igii, 1912 V. Milwaukee & C. R. Co., 2154, 2159 V. Van Court, 1P94 Blount V. Robeson, 1621, 1781 ;'. Winter, 965 Bloutc. Blout, 2350, 2359 Blow 7j. Maynard, 762, S15 Blowar v. Murich, 937 Bludwerth v. Lake, 2151 Blue V. Blue, 1395, 1421, 1422, 1424, 1496 -Blum V. Carter, 1444 V. Robertson, 1271, 1278, 1282 V. Rogers, 1461 Blumbergz;. McNear, 2260 V. Mitchell, 2087 Biumenberg v, Myers, 1316, 13 17, 1326, 1327, 1329* 1330 . Bliimenthal v. Bloomingdale, 996, 1324, 1325 Blumfield's Case, 498 Bluudell V. Dunn, 2282 Blunden v. Baugh, 210 Blunt iv. Aiken, 1199 V. Gee, 866, 916, 936, 947 V. Walker, 2014, 2016, 2107, 2111 BIy, Doe d., v. Colman, 1040 Blyer z>. Monholland, 2068, 2166 Blythe V. Dagiu, 14S5 • 7'. Dennett, 1058, 1345 Boalmans Savings Bank v. Grewe, 2107 Board of Commissioners v. Harman, 12S7, 2260, 2261 Board of Commissioners Tippecanoe County v. B. L. & R. Co., 1019 V. L. M. & B. R. Co., 1019 Boardman v. Bourne, 2335 V. Catlett, 2169 v. Cattle, 2073 V. Florez, 1766 V. Gore, 2339 V, House, 1456 V. Larabee, 2071, 2072 V. Mosmau, 1733 V. Osbom, 1 167 V. Reed, 2304 Boatman v. Lasley, 2217, 221S Boatwright v. Faust, 353 Bob z/. State, 752 Bobo V. Andrew, 2226 Kobst V. Brocks, 1998 Bockover v. Post, 1143 Boddam, Ex parte, 260, 272 Boddington 71. Robinson, 483, 531 Bodiue v. Gladine, 1872 Bodwell V, Webster, 2038, 2039, 2041 Boehm v. Engle, 149 Boester v. Byrne, 2156 Eogardus v. Parker, 732, 1893 z/. Trinity Church, 211, 225, 1148, 1898, 1899 Bogert V. Furmau, 94, 363 V. Hertell, 2101 Bogey If, Shute, 2148 Bogg V. Hargrave, 8go Boggess -u. Meredith, 1924 Boggett V. Frier, 426 " sv. Black, 1271 V. Boggs, 1464J 1919 Boggs V. Fowler, 2149, 2151 Bogie 7j. Rutledge, 766, 826, 830 Bogy z>. Roberts, 597, 59S, 650, 652, 701 7J. Shoab, 2321, 2322 Bohall V. Dilla, 1586, 2306, 2307 Bohaunan v. Combs, 794 Bohannon z'. Sthreshley, 1781 Bohon V. Bohon, 2301 Boice V. Mich. L. Ins. Co., 2149 Bokee v. Hammersley, 2266 Boien -v. Crosby, 2099 Bollenbacker w. Fritts, 1316, 1328 Boiler V. Mayor of New York, 1029 BoUes V. Beach, 2971 Z-. Duff, 1036, 2144 V. State Trust Co., 1580, 1655, 1920, 1931 Boiling V. Boiling, 936 V. Petersburg, 2205 Bollinger 71. Chouteau, 2094 Bollo v. Navarro, 1975 Bolman v. Lohman, 1824 Bolster v. Cushman, 717, 764, 834, 875 Bolton V. Ballard, 791, 805, 845 V. Bolton, 661 zi Brewster, 2000 V. De Peyster, 1837 v. Duncan, 2273 z>. Grantham, 1039 •u. Hamilton, igi6 V. Johns, 1517, i6gg •V. Landers, 1144, 1253, 1308 V. Nallard, 802 z'. Tomlin, 1313 Denn d., v. Bowne, 310 Boltz V. Stolz. 734 Bomar v. Mullins, 1920 Bomback v. Sykes, 1502 Bond, In re, 1684 Bond V. Bond, 986 V. Bunting, 1587 z'. Coke, 51, 104, 133, 2021 z'. Dolby, 2166 V. Hilton, 1903, 1921 V. Hopkins, 1644, 2139 V. Seymour, 1481 Bonds?/. Boardman, 2103 V. Smith, 1213 Bone V. Cooke, 1608, 1735 Bonham v. Galloway, 2101 Bonifant v. Greenfield, 1788 Bonuell v. Allen, 1184 V. Smith, 1405 Bonner v. Kennebeck Purchase, 1982 zj. Peterson, 813, 814 V. Petitioner, 1985 Bonnett zk Saddler, 564, 1185 Bonney v. Foss, 62, 123 V. Ridgard, 1784 Bonomi z>. Backhouse, 200, 2233 Bonorden z'. Kriz, 1490 Bonsall's Case, 1716 Bonsall v. Comly, 1399, 1432 Bonser v. Kinner, 1629 Bonyhuri v. Flummerfelt, 2212 Boody V. Boody, 661 z/. Davis, 1786, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2046 V. McKenny, 2343 V. Neece, 2295 Booker v. Bell, 730 V, Carlile, 1548 T. Jones, 2017, 2020 Bool V. Mix, 515, 905, 985, 986, 1032, 2343 Booley, Doe d., v. Roberts, 2 Boon V. Murphy, 200S V. Pierpont, 2024, 2146 Boone v. Boone, 933, 941 V. Chiles, 1578, 1622,1662, 1782,2036,2123 V. Citizens' Savings Bank, 1655 V. Clark, 2133, 2140 V. Moore, 2356 z/, Pumell, 757 V. Stover, 970, 976 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxvii Boone v. Tipton, 722 ' Hooraem v. Wood, 2067 Booth ti. Adams, 1903 V. Ballimore Steam Packet Co., zo86, 20S7. 208S z'. Bariium, 2027, 2029 V. Booth, 1715, 1733 V. Clark, 2365 V. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2166 V. Cook, 2365 7'. Kehoe, 1047 V. Lambert, 855, 857 V. Small, 229S 7'. Stebbins, qi6, 935 Doe d.. 7'. Field, 1605 Boothby v. Baily, 30 V. Vernon, 649, 675, 689, 694. 697 liopp f. Fox, 7S7, S24 Borah v. Archers, 19SS BoraLton's Case, 315, 1S48 Borden z>. Downey, 1821, 1822 V. Kin^bury, 448 Bordman r-. Osbom, 1171 Boreel v. Lawton, 1082, 1168 Borell z>. Dann, 1697 Borie V. Crissman, 49S Borland's Appeal, 2264 Borland v. Dean, 1659 z>. Nichols, 949 V. Nicoll, 935 Borland's Lessee 7>. Marshall, 517, 598, 603, 604, 612, 614, 706 Borroughs V. White, 1513 Borst V. Boyd, 2075 V, Spelman, 681 }Joskowitz 7'. Davis, 1633 Bosler v. Kuhn, 5S, 59 Bosquett 2>. Hall, 1398, 1401 Bostick V. Keizer, 1751 Bostock V. Blakeny, 1726, 1727 Boston V. Binney, 1213, 1297 V. Richards. 2091 V. Richardson, 4, 2092 Boston Bank z'. Chamberlain, 2014, 2343 V. Reed, 2064, 2066 Boston, C. & M. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 98 Bosion Franklinite Co. z/. Condit, 1729, 1S12, 1843, 1924. 1983 Boston Iron Co. v. King, 21S5 Buston & L. R. Co. v. Boston & S. R. Co., 2327 7'. Salem & L, R. Co., 3 Boston &. Roxbury Mills Co. v. Newman. 2316 Bosion & W. R. Corp. v. Haven, 2089, 2090 V. Sparhawk, 2092 Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & W. R. Co., 221 1, 2327 Bostwick TJ. Atkins, 1031 V. Beach, 839 V. Blades, 270, 271 v. Champion, 1240, 1244 7'. Dry Goods Bank, 1746 7'. Esiate of Dickson, 1783 V. Frankfield, 1163 V. Leach, 51, 52, 53, 143 7'. Williams, 729, 1094 Eoswell V. Buchanan, 2301 7', Dillon, 1609 Bosworth z'. Striskhart, 235S v. Sturtevant, 2357 Botham V. Mclntier, 2015, 2144 Bothell, Doe d., v. Martyr, 1626 Botheroyd v. Woolley, i§oi, 1306 Eotsford 7'. Burr, 1613, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1642, 1646, 1651, 1653, 1696 V. McLean, 2330 Bott 7-. Perley, 2333 Bottoms z/. Carley, 588 V. Corley, 633, 1372 Bottorf V. Connor, 2009 Bouchard v. Bourassa, 1500 Boudette v. Pierce, 1308, 1325, 1335 Boudy 7'. Birdsall, 2.^47 Bouffam v. Green, 2354 Boughton 7/. Langley, 1607 Bouldin v. Alexander, 1661, 2260, 2261 Boulo V. New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co., 572 Boulton 7'. Lies, 918 Bourcier 7-, Edmondson, 2272 Bourdillon t/. Dalton, 2266 Bourn v. Gibbs, 1684 Bourne v. Bourne, 2063 V. Taylor, 84 Boutell V. Cowdin, 1671 Bovy's Case, Sir Ralph. 1626 Bowas 7'. Pioneer Tow Line, 1248 Bowditch 7'. Andrew, 1753 z'. Banuelos, 1662, 1787 Rowe's Case, 1328 Bowen r'. Beck, 2068,2072 7'. Bell, 1698 7'. Bowen, 947, 1401, 1402, 1851, 1862 V. Chase, 160^, 1661, 1671, 1672, 1680, 1737 V. Clark, 1 161 V. Collins, 760 7'. Conner, 282,285 zf. Dean, 317 V. Edwards, 1996 V. Prestou, 1914 7/. Proprietors of South Building, 1289, 1890 zf. Roach, 2257 zf. Scowcroft, 324 Zf. Team, 2211 V. Wood, 106 Bower 7/. Cooper, 1697 V. Hill, 2240 Bowers &. Bowers, 35, 754, 1709 7'. Higbee, 984 V. Johnson, 2111, 2112 7'. Keeseecker, 831, 2306 7'. Oyster, 2004 7'. Poraeroy, 974 7/. Porter, 533, 535 Bowes 7/. East London W. Co., 1037, 1040 Bowie V. Berry, 7S0, 7S2, 841, 1614 z>. Rrahe, 2291 V. O'Neale, 1751 zi. Stonestreet, 647 Bowker 7/. Collins. 1443 V. Walker, 1212 Bowler z'. Erhard, 2260 Bowles' Case, 64, 372, 507, 521, 568, 815, 821, 2186 Bowles 7*. Berrie, 2186 7/. Lyon, 1316, 1331, 1340 V. Poore, 820 V. Rogers, 2006 V. Stewart, 491 Bowling z>. Cook, 2120 Bowman 7'. Bailey, 1240 V. City of New Orleans, 2225 V. CockriU, 2336 V. Conn, 51 V. Foot, 1058, 1155 V, Kelemau, 2251 V. Lee, 2299 7/. Long, 1548, 2315 V. Manter, 2134 Zf. Middleton, 2324 Zf. Norton, 1382 V. Tallman, 1980 Bowne v. Potter, 764, 800, 870 Bowser ?'. Scott, 225a Bowyer's Appeal, 1382 Bowyer z'. Anderson, 1244 V. Martin, 1210 Zf. Seymour, 1138, 1154 Denne d., zf. Judge, 1970, 1971 Boxheimer 7'. Gunn, 2133 Boyce v. Blakewell, 2266 7'. City of St. Louis, 1549 V. Coster, ig6i Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Eoyce 7'. Grundy, i66g z'. Kelbaugh, 2302 z'. Owens, 2346 V. Shiver, 2126 V. Waller, 485 z/. Washburn, 54, 55 Boyce's Exr. tj. Tabb, 1515 Koyd V. Allen, 2079, 2080 V. Baker, 2027 7/. Beck, 2ogi, 2093 V. Blankman, 1620 zf. Boyd, 1732 V. Brincken, 1622 V. Carlton, 789,841, 842, 843, S44, 857 V, Conklin, 19S V. Croydon Railway Co., 1555 V. Cudderback, 240, 1382, 1434, 1467, 1479, 1506 V. De La Moutagnie, 647 V, Ellis, 1758, 2024 7/. England, 1654 V. Harris, 2093 zf. Harrison, 721, 725, 732 V. Hunter, 814, 816, 886 v. Martin, 804 V. McCombs, 2255 zf. McLean, 1538, 1613, 1615, 1642, 1646, 164S V. Parker, 2027 V. ychlesinger, 1047 V. Sherrock, 120, 126 z/. Strahan, 339, 345 Boyd's Lessee v. Talbert, 1154 Boydell v. Drummond, 1087 z/. Golightly, 1693 Boyer z/. Cockerill, 2321 V. Dively, 595, 596 V. Smith, 1 160 V. Sweei, 118, 45S Boyers v. Elliott, ig6i 7/. Newbank, 739, 847, 851 Boykin zf. Edwards, 1515 V. Pace's Exr., 1587 V. Rain, 66i, 663, 665 7/. Shaffer, 1019 Boyle V. Shulman, 1457 Boyleston v. Cordes, 1901 V. Carver, 2102 Boylston Insurance Co. t/. Sylvester, 191 1 Boyne v. Rogers, 1199 Boynton v. Bodwell, 1274, 1275, 1342, 1344 V. Dyer, 695 V. Hodgdon, 2298 V. Hubbard, 1770 V. Longley, igS V. McNeal, 1481 Zf. Reynolds, 2363 V. Sawyer, 766, 783, 801, 826 Boyst V. Ayerst, 1000 Bozarth v. Largent, 588, 66g, 1359, 1363 Bozeman z>. Browning, 1723 Bozon V. Williams, 2002 Bracebridge v. Cooke, 1025 Bracken z'. Cooper, 1990 Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough, 2124, 2139 V. Yale, 2225 Bracenbridge v Cooke, 1025 Bracken v. Cooper, 1990 V. Jones, 2296, 2298 V. Martin, 2295 Brackenridge v. Holland, 1724, 1775 Bracket v. Norcross, 1914 Brackett v. Goddard, 54, 58, 137 V. Leighton, 707, 714, 776 v. Persons Unknown, 779, 807 V. Sears, 2030 V. Wait, 1623 Braddee v. Wiley, 2259 Braden v. Canon, 414, 415, 423 Bradenburg v. Reitheman, 1125 Bradfield v. Eylton Land Co., 1045 Bradford v. Belfield, 1778 Bradford v. Bradford, 267, 2330 v. Caldwell, 489, 513 z>. Kimberly, 1889 71. Limpus, 1758 z'. Marvin, 2004 z'. Patton, 1052 V. Randall, 501 7/. Street, 1814 Bradfords v. Kents, 938, 946, 947, 948 Bradish v. Gibbs, 1828, 1830 V. Schenck, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1239 Bradlee v. Christ's Hospital, 2236 Bradley v. Bailey, 498 V. Bosley, 2009 V. Boynton, 1921 zi. Chester Valley R. Co., 2142, 2157, 2160 V. Corel, 1134, 1136, 1285, 1307, 1315, 1337 V. Covel, 1255, 1299 V. De Goicouria, 1168 V. Dixon, 943 7>. D wight, 194 V. Fuller, 689, 1981, 1998, 2062, 2077 z/. George, 2178, 2180, 2181, 21S3 V. Holdsworth, 42, 43, 45, 817 V. Peixoto, 249, 252, 337, 486, 499, i860 z'. Rodelsperger, 1399 7'. WestCQOt, 339 V. Westcott, 319, 34S, 487, 1806, 1S16, 1S36 V. White, 1240, 1241 Bradley Fish Co. v. Dudley, 2244 Bradner v. Faulkner, 45, 724. 821 Bradshaw v, Callaghan, 732, 1982, 1984, 1989 V. Hurst, 1457, 1521 Bradstreet v. Clarke, 208, 261, 1060, 1855, 2291 V. Rogers, 2325 V. Supervisors of Oneida, 1657, 2014 Bradswell v. Bradswell, 1630 Bradwell 7/. Catchpole, 1733 Brady v. Banta, 1381, 1454, 1514, 1520 Zf. Brady, 1409 V. Ins. Co., 1173 V. Johnson, 2019 V. Parker, 1649 Zf. Peiper, 11 60 7'. Waldron, 2081, 2187 Bragg v. Beers, 2333 z>. Bragg, 779 V. Geddes, 1537 V. Ins. Co., 2114 V. Massie, 2047 V. Paulk, 1589, 1691 Zf. Tesseden, 2337 Brahe v. Eldridge, 1795 Brainard zf. Colchester, 784 Zf. Cooper, 2073, 2074, 2136, 2137, 2170 Brainerd z/. Arnold, 982 v. Brainerd, 2035, 2046 Brair zr. Robertson. 1013 Braithwaite v Hitchcock, 132S Brake v. Ramsay, 985 Brakeley v. Sharp, 2208, 2245 Braker v. Devereaux, 1983 Braldish v. Gibbs, 1820, 1829 Bram v. Bram, 2150 Braman v. Dowse, 2068, 2069 V. Stiles, 253, 273 Bramble v. Billups, 416, 447, 472 Bramhall zf. Ferris, 246, 253, 260, 272, 1747 V. Flood, 2029, 2059 V. Hutchinson, 974, 975 Branch z>. Doane, 970, 2314 Zf. Jesup, 2018 V. Tomlinson, 1506 Branch Bank v. Fry, 2065 Brand v. Frumveller, 1008, 1140, 1141, 1158 Brands v. Grace, 1189 Brandies 7/. Cochrane, 1748 Brandon v. Aston, 260, 272 7;. Bannon, 1145 z/. Robinson, 246, 249, 252, 257, 260, 272, 273» 500, 1373, 1858, i860 TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Brandt 7'. Clark, 2ior Branford v. Braniord, 662, 1369 Brauger v, Maciet, 1066, loSi Brannan v. Oliver, 1765 Bmnnin v. Womble, 1425 Brannon v. May, 1777 Branson v. Hill, 314, 315, 316 V. Labrot, igS V. Yancey, 731, 744, 837 Brant v Gelston, 292, 319 V. Virginia Coal & Iron Co., 319, 338, 339. 351. 1S06, 2302 Brantom v. Griffiths, 46 Branton v. O'Briant, 1327, 132S, 1329, 1340 Krashear v. Williams, ig6 Brassey v. Chalmers, 1833, 1842 Brastow v. Rockport Ice Co., 71 Bratt V. Bratt, 975 V. Bratt's Admrs., 976, 1249 Bratton v. Clawson, 136 V. Massey, 1563 V. Mitchell, 1366, 1368, 1369, 1370 Brawner v. Staup, 1642, 1646 Braxon v. Bressler, 68, 1014 Braxton v. Coleman, 7S9, 790, S23 V. Lee, 794 Bray v. Lamb, 8Sg, 927, 949 V. Neill's Exrs., 936 V. West, 1788 Braybroke v. Inskip, 2083, 2084 Braye & Camoy's Peerage, Matter of, 233 Braythwayte v. Hitchcock, 1258, 1261, 1262, 1264, 1276, 1320, 1324, 1325 Brayton v. Jones, 2087 Brazee v. Lancaster Bank, 2140 Brazier v. Ansley, 1237 Brearley w. Cox, 142 Brearly -v. Brearly, 1810 Breckenridge ti. Auld, 2001, 2040 V. Brooks, 2085, 2087, 2088, 2070 V. Ormsby, 986, 2011,2129, 2244, 2345 Breckenridge 's Heirs v. Ormsby, 2132 Brecknock v. Pritchard, 1098, 1183 Bredell v. Collier, 315 Breed v. Judd, 2343 Breeden v. McLaurin, 1900 Breeding v. Davis, 588, 669, 670 Breese v. Bangs, 688 V. McCann, 1139 Brennan v. Wallace, 1461, 1465 V. Whitaker, 143 V. Wilson, 1786, 1800 Brent's Case, 1550, 1551, 1568 Brent z/. Best, 518 Brenton v. Cannon, 518 Bresee -u. Stiles, 1411 Bressler v. Kent, 2345 Brest V. Offley, 1629 Brett V. Carter, 2019 V. Cumberland, 3263 71. Rigden, 1571 Brevard v. Neely, 1598, 1795 Brevoort v. Brevoort, 1980 Brewer -v. Baxter, 236 V. Boston Theater, 1019 V. Connell, 728, 794, 795, 893, 913, 914) 1576 V. Craig, 1290 V. Dyer, 11 19, 2265 V. Hardy, 2316, 2317, 2319 V. Harris, 969, 1006 ■V. Hill, 225, 475, 481, 969, 974, 1047 V. Hyndman, 2172 V. Keeler, 1212 V. Linnseus, 1456 V. Marshall, 2214 V. Maurer, 2166 V. Staples, 2150, 2179 ■V. Thorp, 1315, 1316 V. Wall, 1408, 1414, i47Zj M73; 1474? i484» 1485, i486, 1487 Brewster &. Baker, 2044 Ixxxix Brewster v. Carmes, 2109 V. De Fremery, 1196, 1197, 1200 V. Kitchell, 1869 V. Lime, 1746, 1765 V. Madden, 2059 V. Striker, 299, 1606 Briar v. Robertson, 1323 Brice's Estate, 596 Brice V. Randall, 2207. 2217 V. Stokes, 1608, 1732, 1733, 1735 Brick V. Getsinger, 2187 Brick Co. V. Pond, 983 Brick Presbyterian Church, Re. 38, 40 Brick Presbyterian Church v. New Y^-rk City, 40 Bricker v Hughes, 51 V. Whalley, 1939 Brickhouse r/. Sutton, 878 Bridge's Case, 958 Bridge V. Wellington, 281, 291 Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken L. & J. Co., 1516 Bridgemans v. Wells, 1046 Bridgen v. Carhart, 2139 Bridgeport v. Bliun, 2073, 2169 V. Hubbell, 2332 V. Maxwell, 297, 889 Bridger v. Pierson, 2361 Bridges -v. Hitchcock, 1008 V. Potts, 1337 Bridgewater zk Bolton, 202, 309, 312 V. PZgerton, 60 Bridgford v. Riddel, 1376 Bridgham v. Smith, 2207 V. Tileston, 11 19, 2265 Bridgney v. Hitchcock, 1008 Briggs V. Austin, 1207 V. Davis, 1795, 1798, 2169 V. Earl of Oxford, 572 V. Fish, 1993 V. Hall, 1128, 1166 V. Kaupman, 2153 V. Morgan, 594 V. Morse, 1095 V. Partridge, 1042 V. Penny, 1627, 1630, 1633, 1683 V. Shaw, 307, 309, 312 7J. Titus, 641 Erigham v. Eveleth, 1896, 1967 z/. Potter, 2060 ■u. Winchester, 1996 Bright V. Eynon, 518 V. McOuat, 1256, 1278, 1301, i3r4, 131% 1327, 1328 V. Pennywit, 2157 V. Walker, 2292 Brightman v. BriglUman, 418 Brightwell V. Mallory, 817 Brigland v. Shafter, 983 Briles v. Pace, 996 V. Paste, 995 Brimmer v. Proprietors Long Wharf, 2091, 2092 Brinckerhoff z*. Lansing, 2133 Brindemagle v. German Ref. Church, 2156 BringhofE v. Munzemaler, 103 Bringloe v' Goodson, 1820, 1844, 1845 Brinkerhoff v. Phelps, 1092, 2133 Briiikley v. Walcott, 1133 V. Willis, i78r Brinkman v. Jones, 2085 Brinley v. Mann, 2013 V. Whiting, 2092 Brinton v. Datas, 2262 T. Hooks, 1919 T. Seevers, 2366 Brisbane v. Dates, 1180 V. Stoughton, 2159 Briscoe V. McElween, 2273 V. McGee, 1919, 2005, 2006 zi. Powers, 2176, 2 181 Bristol V. Carroll, 2298 V. Morgan, 2166 xc TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Bristow V. Warde, 1811, 1882, 1990 Krittain v. McKay, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52 Brittin v. Handy, 1618, 1619, 170S, 1770 Brittlebank v. Goodwin, 1782 Rritton's Appeal, 2126 Brittoni'. Twining, 437, 1693 V. Updyke, 2154, 2179, 2180 Broach v. Barfiald, 2046 Broadbeut v. Ramsbothatn, 2226 Broaddus v. Turner, 416, 417 Broadhurst v. Balgay, 1733 V. Morris, 324 Bioadman z/. Osborn, 1127 Broadrup v. Woodman, 1592 Broadwater v. Darne, 1033 Brobst V. Brock, 1993, 1997, 199S Brock V. Eastman, 1914, 1982 V. Smith, 103, loS Erocklehurst, 2095 Brockway v. Thomas, 996, 1295 Brodiev. Barry, 368, 719,2057, 2289 Brogden v. Walker, 463 Brograve v. Winder, 316 Brolaskey v. Lota, 1168 Brolasky v. Ferguson, 2270 V. Fury, 2263 V. Gaily's Exrs., 76 Bromfield, Ex parte, 95 Bromley v. Elliott, 1242, 1243 V. Jefferies, 1053, 1087 Brompton v. Aikis, 1968 Broncker v. Coke, 1571 Brondage v. Warner, 2236 Brone's Admrs. v. Bockover, 670 Bronson v. Coffin, 1069, 1092, 1093, 1094 V. Kinzie, 1507, 1510,1511, 1512 V. Newberry, 1518 V. Rodes, 2254 V. St. Peter's Church, 39 Brook V. -Briggs, 1148 V. Brook, 753 Brookbank v. Brookbank, 1791 Brooke's Appeal, 1690, 2121, 2122 Brooke v. Berry, 1735 V. Brooke, 707, 710, 752 Brookings v. White, 1514, 2031, 2040 Brookover v. Hurst, 1997 Brooks V. Avery, 2o5o V. Brooks, 479, 497, 506, 1034 V. Cliatham, 1499 V. Cunningliam, 1248,^2255, 2273 •V. Curtis, 2235 7'. Dent, 161 1 V. Everett, 692, 703, 761, 762, 78S, 797, 798, 815 V. Fowle, 1646 V. Galster, 12 10 V. Hyde, 1284, 1394 V. Jones, 290 V. Marbury, 1605. 1712, 1794 V. Moody, 1094, 1095 V. Pearson, 1748 V. Shelton, 1633, 1646 V. White, 1701 V. Whitmore, 2124 V. Wilcox, 2255 Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. -u. Butler, 68, 70, 7^ 72i 73 Broom v. Broom, 786, 825, 1957 V. Hore, 2263 Broome 71. Davis, 1385 Broomfield v. Smith, 13 13 Brophy v. Bellamy, 1740 Brophy Co. v. B. N. D. Co., 1047 Brossart v. Carlett, 2240 Brost V. Simpson, 1862 Brothers 7>. Cartwright, 76 V. Harrill, 2047 V. Hurdle, 47 V. McCurdy, 249 Brough V. Higgins, 506, 513 Broughton v. Broughton, 1791 Broughton v. Langley, 1703 V. Randall, 765 Brouwer v. Jones, 268, 1103 Brow V. Clack, 667 Browder v. Browder, 908 Brower v. Bowers, 769 Brown's Appeal, 1844 Brown v. Adams, 1248, igii, 2255 V. Alden, 411, 1050 V. Anderson, 415 V. Armistead, 1752 V. Ashbough, 1456 V. Austen, 1016 V. Bailey, 1925 V, Balen, 2331 V. Bates, 1886, 2147 7'. Beatty, 2326 V. Berry, 2221 7'. Best, 100 V. Bigg, 315 •V. Bowen, 2248 V. Boyd, 313 V. Bragg, 968, 969, 1280, 1327 V. Bronson, 727, 794, 912, 913 V. Brown, 71, 940, 987, 1398, 1400, 15S9, 1590, 1980, 1981, 1989, 2252, 2303, 2341 V. Budd, 2006 V. Burlingham, 2279 V. Caldwell, 956, 965, 1684, 1686 V. Cantrell, 947 V. Cayuga & S. R. Co., 1798 V, Chamberlain, 1795 IK Clark, 588, 672 V. Clifford, 204S V. Coats, 1233 V. Cockrell, 2296 V. Cole, 2128, 2173 V. Collins, 710 V Combs, 1590, 1706, 2ogi V. Coon, 1413, J443, 1449, 1450, 1455, 1467, 1468, 1469, 1478 V, Corey, 88 V. Ci-am, 1998. 2079 •v. Cramm, 1998 V, Crump, 79 •V. Dean, 2042, 2121 V. Delaney, 2147 V. Dewey, 2031, 2042, 2052, 2053, 2054 •u. Dillahunty, 1517 V. Doane, 1586, 1616, 1617 V. Duncan, 823, 826, 842. 844 V. Dwelley, 1612 V. Dwelly, 1614 V. Dysinger, 1149, 1213 V. East, 2008 V. Engel, 1280 V. Farran, 909 V. Fifield, 1514,1515 V. Fitz, 2312 V, Gale, 1367, 1920, 1945 z/. Gay, 211,2296 V. Gilman, 2005 V. Higginbotham, 1240 z>. Higgs, 1628 7/. Hodgdon, 98G V. Holyoke, 2039 z'. Homan, 1990 7'. Illius, 2230 V. Jackson, 2263 V. Jaddrell, 1034 V. Johnson, 1716 V. Kayser, 995, 1134, 1274, 1316, 1318, 1326, 1336, 1337 a. Keller, 1159, 1214, 1308, 1393, 1394, 1410, 1424 V. Kirkman, 2123 V. Kite, 1123 V. Lapham, 728, S02, 803, 8og, 810, 2097, 2134 V. Leach, 2031, 2032, 2079 V. Leete, 2298 V. Leitch, 1050 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. XCl Brown?'. Lillie, no, 113 V. Lindsay, 1025 V. Lunt, 2366 71. Lynch, 1586, 1621, 1645, 1770 V. Lyon, 17^4 V. AlcKinally, 1180 V. McKinney, 517, 2398 v, McMullin, 1985 V. Martin, 1378 V. Matthews, 1046 z'. Mauler, 2364 V, Meredith, 733, 735 V. Minturn, \-jc)^ 7>. Morrill, 1956 V. National Bank, 2142 V. National Bank of Hamilton, 2S4 V. Nevitt, 2056, 2149 7'. Parson, 10S7, 1088, 1205, 1316 V. Peck, 269 V. Pecock, 270 %'. Penstz, 2337 V. Persons, 1290 V. Phillips, 2301 V. Porter, 234 c. Powell, nil, 1123 V. Raindle, 1970 V. Ramsden, 1605 7'. Ransey, 292 7'. Renshaw, 1843 V. Richards, 806 z>. Rickets, 695, 1715, 1716 z'. Robbins, 1242 V. Sanborn, 51 r'. Simon, 2089, 2090, 2153, 2180, 2183 7*. Simons, 2090 7'. Snell, 688,2062, 2063, 2147 V. Sprague, 216, 221, 222 V. Stanclift, 54 7'. State, 1401 7'. Stead, 2150, 2152 V. Stewart, 1998, 2077, 2079 7'. Storey, 1028 V. Thurston, 1267, 2067 V. Tigle, loog 7'. Trumper, 1007, 1314 7'. Turner, 1973, 1982 V. Tyler, 2016 V. Van Braam, 1516 V. Vandergrif t, 84, 100 7f. Van Horn, 1300, 1308, 1335, 1338 V. Vanlier, 2006 V. Weaver, 1776 V. Webster, 1711 V. Wellington, 1911 V. Wenham, 196 V. Werner, 2235, 2237 V. Westbrook, 660 V. Wever, 411, 412, 423, 447, 468, 671 V. Whiteway, 1608, 1797 V. Williams, S85, 886 7'. Williamson, 254, 273, 1675 V. Willis, 2167 V. Windsor, 2234 V. Wood, 305, 307, 308, 311, 312, 1913 V. Wright, 1577, 1720, 1721, 1722, 2336 Brown*s Admr. z>. Bragg, 1138, 1150 Brown*s Exrs. v. Higginbotliam, 1241, 1244 Browne v. Bockover, 592 V. Brockville, etc., 1194, 1195 V. Cavendish, 1794 V. Kennedy, loi V. Potter, 764 V. Warner, 1313 V. Witt, 1398, 1400. 1401 Browne's Lessee v. Anderson, 426 Brownell zk Brownell, 291, 416, 423, 1975, 19S2 V. Welch, 1327, 1329, 1335, 1339 Browning 7/. Harris, 1381, 1476 Brownlee v. Allen, 1956 Browuson v. Gifford, 1984 V. Hull, 1920, 1931, 1932, 1933. 1940. 1951. 1952 Brownsville 7'. Basse, 1140 Broyles v. Nowlin, 1621, 1760 Brubaker v, Paul, 2292 Bruce, Ex parte^ 2002 Bruce 7'. Booney, 2102 V. Fulton National Bank, 1067, 1082, 2362 V. Luke, 2322, 2323 V. Schuyler, 1517 V. Strickland, 721 V. Wood, 591, 1365 Bruch zi. Landy, 2334 V, Lantz,27g, 1703 Brudenell v. Elwes, 1828 Bruorton's Case, 547 Brugman v, Noyes, 1103 Brumfield v. Carson, 3 1 ; Brumfitt V. Roberts, 28, 30, 33, 36 Brumley v. Fanning, 2081 Brundage v. Brundage, 42, 43 Bvundred v. Walker, 2151 Brune, Doe d., 7'. Martyn, 1596 Bruner v. Briggs, 670 V. Meigs, 1808 Brunson v. Hunter, 1629 Bruntoii v. Hall, 2220 Brunswick r-. Litchfield, 597 Brunswick-Balke CoUander Co. v. R^es, 199 Brunswick Sav. Inst. z>. Com. Uniou Ins. Co., 2116, 2119 Brush V. Kinsley, 2007 V. Ware, 1778, 2304, 2359 Bryan 7'. Atwater, 1915, 229S V. Batcheller, 773, 774, 887, 894, 920, 921 V. Bradley, 208, 297, 1542, 1548, 1549, 1551. i558>23i5 7'. Butts, 2000, 2062 7'. Cowart, 2039, 2047 ■V. Duncan, 1621 ZK Lawrence, 120, 137 V. Ramirez, 1890, 2364 7'. Weems, 1712, 1781, 1784, 1797 V. Wetherhead, 2216 V. Whistler, 29 Doe d., 7'. Bancks, 1058, 1138 Bryan's Exrs. v. Thompson's Exrs., 1887 Bryant v. Christian, 338 zi. Cowart, 2039 zi. Crosby, 51. 2047 V. Erskine, 1849, 2031, 2032 V. Hendricks, 1642, 1643, 1648 V. Hunter, 786, 824 V. Kinlaw, 1288 V. McCane, .707, 916, 935 7'. Pennell, 2020 V. Russell, 1600, 1671 V. Tucker, 1280, 1285 V. Woods, 1513 Brydges v. Brydges, 1580, 1591, 1693 Bryson v McCreary, 2250 7'. Rayner, 1770 Bubier v. Porter, 951 V. Roberts, 932, 955, 956 Buccleuch 7'. Wakefield, 90 Buchan v. James, 1782 V. Summer, 694, 1671, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1963 Buchana z'. Monroe, 2062 Buchanan's Estate, In re, 712, 918, 943, 1382, 1406 Buchanan z>. Buchanan, 963, 965 z>. Curtis, 2205, 2206 7'. Deshon, 750, 775 V, Duncan, 603, 608, 675, 687 V. Hamilton, 1600 V, International Bank, 2120, 2126 7'. King, 1990 V. Monroe, 2112, 2150, 2152 V. Schaffer, 788 V. Sheffer, 687, 780 V. Shiffer, 656 Bucheridge v. Ingram, 44, 710 xcu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Buchill z'. Clary, 2343 Buck 71. Binninger, 489 7', Colbath, 1516 z/. Conlogue, 1462, 1463, 1464 V. Payue, iggS 7.: Pickweli, 54, 55 z!. Robinson, 794 ■u. Seyiriour, 2018 7'. Spofford, 1894 V. Swazey, 161S, 1635, 1646, 1651J 1652, 1779 Buckelew 7/. Snedeker, 1904 Euckely 7/. Daley, 1998 Euckenridge v. Ingi-am, 42, 776,816 Buckeridge v. Ingram, 20 Buckingham v. Hanna, 2300 7/. Nelson, 1497 V. Smith, loi, 2328 Buckingham, Earl of, v. Drury, 923 Buckingham's Exrs. v. Reeve. 975 Buckinghamshire v. Drury, 951, 953, 955 Buckinghamshire, Earl of, v. Hobart, 510 Buckland v. Butterfield, 129 V. Hall, logi, 2263 V. Pappilian, 1008 Buckle V. Mitchell, 1626 Buckler's Case, 4S2, 530 Buckles zT. Lafferty's Legatees, 1716, 1766, 1770 Buckley v. Buckley, 61, 127, 138, 6c6, 607, 694, 1671, i960, 1964 v. Daley, iggS v. Nightengale, 278 V. Taggart, 1222 ' V. Wheeler, 143 1 Bucklin 7/. Truell, 2226 Buckly V. Coles, 2208, 2215 Bucknall v. Story, 1180 Buckner 7/. Calcote, 1781 V, Jewell, 2266 V. Sessions, 2149 7/. Warren, 1137, 1140, 1150 Buckout V. Swift, 2021, 2022 Buckridge z>, Ingram, 779 Bucks V. Drury, 957 Bucksport V. Spofford, 236 Buckworth &. Thirkell, 581, 664, 690, 691,780, 815,820, 826, 827, 885, 1569 Budd 7/. Hiler, 724, 847 V. State, 2332 Buddie, Doe d., v. Lines, 1310 Budge 7/. Gummow, 1664 Buell 71. Buckingham, 1766, 1772, 1775 7/. Irwin, 2365 Buerger v. Boyd, 1015, 1176 Buffalo City Cemetery 7/. Buffalo, 40 Buffalo East Side R. Co. v. Buffalo St. R. Co., 198 Buffalo R. Co. V. Braiuard, 2325, 2327 Bufferlow 7'. Newsom, 1216, 1217 Buffin 7/. Hutchinson, 281 Buffum v. Buffum, 7S6, 1963 V. Deane, 1115, 2251, 2257, 2259 V. Greene, 2349 7/. Hutchinson, 283, 284, 285, 532 Buford 7/. McKee, 2333 Buhl 7>. Kenyon, 974, 976, 1225 Buist 7'. Dawes, 383 Bulfer V. Willingrod, 945 Bulger v. Roche, 2299 7/. Woods, 1922 Bulkley v. Chapman, 211 1 7/. De Peyster, 1598 V. Dolbeare, 560 Bull 7'. Bull, 1630 7/. Conroe, 1388, 1513 V. Griswold, 45, 51, 135, 996, loio, 2259 V. Kentucky National Bank, 1677, 1679 V. Schuberth, 1244 7>. Sykes, 2015 Bullard v. Briggs, 708, 715, 726, 746, 878, 1698 V. Chandler, 1665 7/. Goffe, 202 Bullard v. Harrison, 2208 V. Johnson, 2251 V. Leach, 811, 2097 v. Powers, 766 Bullen V. Runnells, 2247 Doe d., V. Mills, 1148 BuUene 7'. Haitt, 1499 Buller v. Burt, 1830 Bullitt V. Musgrave, 1228 Bullock 7'. Dommitt, 563, 1068, logS, 1099, 1153, 1179, ii8r V. Hayward, 1901 V. Thorne, 1845 Bulwer v. Bulwer, 48, 539, 1206, 1207, 1253, 1267 Bumgardner v. Circuit Court, 1518 Bunce v. Gallagher, 2291 7'. West, 2074, 2171, 2174 Bunch V. Hurst, 1758 Bundy z>. Iron Co., 2069 Bunker v. Locke, 1378, 1419, 1443, i44S» 2188 Bunn V. Channen, 2195 7/. Daly, 637 7/. Lindsay, 2138 7>. Winthrop, 1791 Bunnell z/. Evans, 533 Bunner z/. Storm, 1649 Bunny v. Wright, loig Doe ex. d., v. Rout, 2 Bunting v. Ricks, 1759, 1765 Bunz v. Cornelius, 1485 Burbank v. Crooker, 1246 7'. Day, 867, 869 V. Dyer, 1020, 1021, 1135, 1304, 1315, 1316, 1342 v. Fay, 2291 7/. Warwick, 2111 V. Whitney, 1541 Burch 7/. Burch, 1849 V. Carter, 1777 zi, Newbury, 2324 Burchard v. Frazer, 2031 Burchfield 7/. N. Cent. R. Co., 2262 Burchman v. Wilson, 1176 Burckle 71. Eckhart, 1240, 1243, 1244 Eurd 7/. Den.sdale, 635, 636, 637 Burden v. Sheridan, 1642 7/. Tliayer, 1027, 1028, 1120, 1121, 1171, 1847, 2064, 2151 Burdeno t^. Amperse, 646, 895 V. Banterse, 1938 Burdet v. Hopegood, 618 Burdett7;. Clay, 2104, 2105, 2106 V. Doe d. Spilsbury, 1831 7/. Withers, 1228 Doe d., V, Wrighte, 1744 Burdge V. Bolin, 143 1 Burdick v. Briggs, 771, 919, 920 V. Jackson, 2001 V. Washburn, 1229, 1234 Burditt 7/. Colbum, 2035 Burette v. Briggs, 200S Burey zi. Reese, 2318 Burford v. Rosenfield, 2158 Burgaine v. Spurling, 2128 Burge V. Smith, 901,911, 912 Burger v. Potter, 2007, 2009 Burges 7/. Curwin, 373 ZI. Mawbey, 491, 509 Burgess zj. Eve, 2030 V. Rice, 12 14 z'. Wheate, 157, 277, 299, 477, 1534, 1545, 1551* 1558, i57S» 1597. 1692, 1704, 1736, 2009 V. Wheaton, iSoo 7>. Wilson, 1349 Burgett V. Taliaferro, 1882, 1898 Burghardt v. Turner, 492, 1910 Burgher v. Humphrey, 9S3 Burgoyne z/. Spurling, 2127, 212S Burhans v. Burhans, 1982, 1984 7^. Hutchens, 2096, 2 no 7/. Van Zandt, 1738, 1883 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. XCiU Burk V. Chrisman, 2151; Burk, E.V parte, v. Hamstead Free School, 1037 Burke v. Adaras, 220 V. Allen, 3126 7j. Bank of Tennessee, 2064 V. Barron, 731, 831, 835 V. Colbert, 65O) 657 V, Hale, 1212 V, Lynch, 2094 V. Miller, 2128 V. Smith, 1 581 V. State, 1243 V. Valentine, 585, 588, 653, 670, 687 Burkett v. Burkett, 1452 Biirkham v, Beaver, Burks V. Burks, 1619, 1633, 1760 V. Mitchell, 2297 P'urland v. Kipp, 2099 Burleigh v. Clough, 320, 336, 487, 1815, 1820 V. Cluff, 487 V. Coffin, 1024, 1363, 1364, 1367, 136S Burlen v. Shannon, 662 liurleson v. Burleson, 1899 Burling x*. King, 1697 Bumap V. Cook, 1409, 1473, 1474, 1475, 1484, i4Q3i 1496, 1497. 1504. 1523 Burne, Doe d., v. Prideaux, 1040 r.urnes z/. Bryant, 973 TV. McCubbin, 1137, 1143, 1146, 11 50 Burnet v. Burnet, 720, 817, S18 V. Davis, 677, 1372 V. Deuniston, 415, 2097, 2136, 2139, 2x61 V. Pratt, 2125 Burnett v. Deunison, 2074 V. Denuiston. 2073 V. Lynch, 1073 V. Marshall, 1910 V. Pratt, 1886, 2102, 2125 V. Rich, 1217 V. Thompson, 974, 988, 1046 Bumham 7>, Kempton, 2248 Burns v. Bryant, 1274, 1278, 1280, 1291, 1344 V. Bums, 597 V. Cooper, 1230, 123 1, 2251 V. Gallagher, 2241 V. Harris, 1399 V. Jones, 1454 V. Lewis, 1952, 1953 V, Lynde, 727, 1044, 2339 V. O'Rourke, 1033 V. Phelps, 1 1 68 V. Thayer, 829 w. "Thompson, 1947 Burnside v. Merrick, 1963, 1964 V. Merritt, 786, 825 V. Terry, 1517, 1999, 2036, 2037 V. Twitchell, 131, 133, 2186 V. Wayman, 2038 z'. Weightman, 46 Bumson v. King, 1632 Burr V. Beers, 207a, 2071 V. (iraves, 976 V. Hutchinson, 2331 V. Mills, 2240 V. Phcenix Glass Co., 2342 V. Sim, 75, 522, 533 V. Smith, 1541 V. Spencer, 982 V. Stenton, 1080, 1082, 1125, ii6g V. Veeder, 2089 Burrage v. Briggs, 2282 Burrell v. Bull, 1621, 1643 V. Burrell, 2298 Doe d., V. Perkins, 1309 Burridge v. Bradyl, 937 ]?uiTill V. Sheil, 1599, 1663 Burris z'. Page, 697, 698, 820, 821 Burritt v. Saratoga M. F. Ins. Co., 2114 V. Silliman, 1598 Burrough v. Foster, 411, 414 V. Philcox, 16S5 P.urroi:ghs v. Nutting, 650, 657 z.. Richman, 1033 Burrow -v. Hensou, 2ib8 Burrowes v. Gradin, 1306 V. Lock, 1697, 1758 Bursen v. Goodspeed, 1411 Burson's Appeal, 1366 Bursou V. Fowler, 1449, 1454 V. Huntington, 2033, 2035 Burston v. Jackson, 2301 Burt V, Herron, 347, 1593 Burt V. Hulburt, 661, 1377 V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 2327 V. Ricker, 2085 V. Wilson, 1616, 2004 Burton v. Barclay, 1163 V, Baxter, 2100, 2102, 2104, 21Q& V. Burton, 750 V. Hintrager, 2084 V. Holley, 1247 ■u. Lies, 943, 2156 V. Marshall, 646 71. Martz, 2366 V. Muffitt, 2235 V. Murphy, 1899, 1900 V. Rohrbeck, 1079 V. Smith, 2083 7'. Wheeler, 2136, 217S Burtt's Estate, Re, 1818 Burwell v. Anderson, 317, 319 V. Fauber, 1778 V. Hobson, 2241, 2248 Burwell's Exrs. v. Lumsden, 934 Bury V. Hartman, 1759 Burynham v. Grey Hospital, 1088 Busby 7'. Busby, 202, 302, 311, 331 V. Holthaus, 2231 V. Salter, 322,324 Busch V. Cooper, 2362 Bush's Appeal, 1561, 1576, 1579, 1597, 1674, 1736, 1747 Bush V. Bradley, 600, 601, 603, 604, 612, 614, 619 V. Bush, 1704, 1773 v. Cole, 1092 V. Cooper, 2059 7'. Hicks, 2331 V. Lathrop, 2109 V. Lester, 1512 V. Scott, 1497 V. Sherman, 2160 z'. Steinman, 1194 V. Sullivan, 2212 Bushby v. Dixon, 362 Buskirk v. Stridkland, 2233 Buss V. Dyer, 2242 Busse's Estate, Matter of, 1521 Bussman v. Ganster, 1001, 1002, 1098, 1178, 1182 Bustard's Case, 798, 819, iggi Buswell V. Marshall, 2272 v. Peterson, 2144 Butcher v. Butcher, 1315, 1356 V. Rogers, 2322 Butler's Case, 821 Butler V. Birkey, 2177 V. Butler, 799, 975 V. Carter, 1782 V. Cheatham, 710, 759, 761, 815 7'. Godley. 1580 V. Haskell, 1745, 1757, 1758 XI. Heustis, 403, 408, 183 1, 1839 V. Kidder, 1176 V. Ladue, 2140 V. Little, 311, 330, 331, 332, 536 V. Mulinhill, 1032, 1034 V. Nelson, 1431 I'. Page, 97, 112, 130, 131, 133, 136, 142, 146, 1027, 2162 z'. Portarlington, i6gi V. Rivers, 1225 V. Roys, 191 1, 1984 V. Seward, 808, 8og, 2130 V. Porter, 1691 XCIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pnges. IjuU 7>. EUettj 1051, 2018, 2020 7'. Thomas, 417 Hutte Canal & D. Co. v. Vaugn, 223S, 2239 liuiterfield zf. Beall, 590, 1231, 13O4, 1367 V. Field, 665 V. Stanton, 959 2'. Wicks, 141 1 Butterick v. Holden, 1005 Butterworth v. Crawford, 2241 Buttlar V. Rosenblath, 1932, 1944, 1950, 1952 Buttrick v. Wentworth, 2164 Butts V. Broughtou, 1485, 2075, 2169, 2170, V. Trice, 960, 963 71. Wood, 75 Euxton 7'. Dearborn, 1419. 1483, 1514, 1515 V. Inhabitants of Uxbridge, 402, 42S, 449 z'. Rust, 1000 Buzick V. Ruzick, 716, 726, 727, 746, 87S, 879 Byam v. Bickford, 1897 Byassee v. Reese, 54, 55 Byckman, ?'. Gills, go 1 yer v. Etnye, 882 E)'ers V. Byers, 102S, 1403, 1405 V. Danley, 1635 7'. Wackman, 1648, 1700 Byington 7>. Backwalter, 2169 Byng V. Byng, 60, 324 Bynum ?'. Bostwick, 184 Byrane v. Rogers, 1060, 1154 Byrd zt. McDaniel, 2175 Byrne v. Beeson, 1144 V. Byrne, 662 V. Van Hoesen, 1022 Byrnes 7/. Stillwell, 345 Caballero v. Henty, 1765 Cabeen v. Mulligan, 1386, 1442, 1443, 1459, 1460, 1 461 Cade V. Brownlee, 974, 976 Cadell V. Palmer, 323, 971 Cadmus 7'. Combes, 504 Cadogau t. Kennet, 1626 Doe d., 7/. Ewart, 300,315,322, 1553, 1557, 1597, 1605, 1606 Cadwalader v, Bailey, 2215, 2217 Cadwallader v. App, 1145 7>. Harris, 1515 Cady !•. Allen, iioi V. Owen, 2302 7'. Shepherd, loiS Caffney 7'. Hicks, 2041 Cage V. Acton, 660, 770 7/. Russell, 1157 Cagger I/. Lansing, 1139 Cahill V. Wilson, 1462 Cain V. Cain, 916 V. McGuire, 54, 55 Caines f. Grant, 1618 Cains v. Jones, 2359 Cairncross 7>. Lorimer, 2302 Cairns 7'. Chabert, 504, 505, 740 71. Colbum, 1537 Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Turner, 2324 Cairo & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 1317 Calame v. Calame, 771, 772, 919, 920 Calbraith v. Green, 763 Calcraft zi. Roebuck, 202 Caldecot v. Smythies, 1205, 1208 Calder v. Bull, 885 Calderwood 7/. Tevis, 1441 Caldwall ?'. Baylis, 573 Caldwell V. Copeland, 88 V. Fulton, 88, 89, 2189 V. Furgeson, 306, 331, 334, 337 V. Harris, 1213 r'. Smith, 1212, 1219 V. Taggart, 2147 Caledonian R. Co. ?'. Sprot, 66, go, 92 Calhoun V. Atchison, 2255 7/. Calhoun, 1491, 1497, 1562 7'. Cook, 210, 533 7'. Curtis, 1905, igir 7'. Hays, 1977 z'. McLendon, 1400 7/. Williams, 1398, 1400 California Dry Dock Co. z*. Armstrong, 1153, J228 Califoniia Tel. Co. 7: Alta. Tel. Co., 197 Calkins 7/. Calkins, 799, 2000 7>. Isbell, 2095 z>. Munsel, 2171 , Call 7>. Barker, 19S1, 1982, 1983 ' Callahan 7>. Hawkes, 1120 7'. Robinson, 917 7'. Shaw, 2066 Callender 7j. Marsh, 2232 Callis V. Day, 2011 V. Kemp, 416, 447 V. Tolson, 17S1 Calloway 71. People's Bank, 2159, 2160 Calton 7/. Hilley, 990 Calus V. Harper, 818 Calver v. Harper, 885 Calvert v. Aldrich, 64, 65, 1891, 2234 V. Bradley, 11 17 7'. Eden, 1548, 1583 7'. Simpson, 996 v. Williams, 1517 Doe d., z/. Frowd, 1309 Calvin's Case, 673 Calvo V. Davies, 2150, 2071, 2072 Cambria Iron Co.'s Appeal, 2273 Cambridge Valley Bank ?'. Dilam, 2359 Camden Mut. Ins. Co. 7>. Jones, 966 Camel v. Portland Sugar Co., 1194 Cameron v. Irwin, 20S6, 2127, 2128, 2129, 2155, 2161, 21S5 7/. Lewis, 1643 V. Mason, 2005 Cameto v. Dupuy, 1426 Camley v. Stanfield, 1222 Camp 7'. Camp, 1148, 1348 7f. Chamberlain, 50 7'. Cleary, 254 7'. Homesley, 1903 ' V. Scott, 1139, 2257, 2274 7'. Smith, 2101 Campau z'. Barnard, 1990 V. Campau, igo8 ZI. Laffery, ggg z>. Shaw, 1023 Campbell 71. Adair, 1380, 1457, i45g, 1460, 1461, 1466, 1483, 1514, 1515 Zi. Ayers, 1386, 1441, 1442 ?'. Baldwin, 2008 V. Beaumont, 345, 352 V. Bemis, 2151 7'. Brown, 8go z>. Campbell, 6g4, 786, 801, 817, 825, 1464, 1878, 1884, 1905 zf. Carson, 306, 331, 333, 338 7'. Crampton, 753, 754 7/, Dearborn, 2041, 2044, 2045, 2047, 2048, 2054 ZI. Elliott, 1502 7J. Evans, 2324 ?/. Foster, 273; 1747, 1798 v. Gullatt, 596 z>. Hampton, 1214 V. Hunt, 976 V. Johnson, 2357 V. Johnston, 2155 V. Jones, 1440 v. Knight, 783, 803 V. Kulm, 2345 z/. Leach, 1039, 1838, 2014 7J. Lewis, 1074 ?'. Lowe, 1979 I'. Macomb, 2185 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. xcv Campbell v. McManus, 1387 V, Mesier, 65, 508, 757, 2236,2237 V, Miller, 1664, 1714, 1718, 1720, 1724 V. Morris, 7 82 1). Murphy, 802, 813, 841, S44, 866 V, Patterson, 2068 1). Proctor, 1252, 1266, 1291, 1305 V. Roach, 2009 V. Roddy, 112, 133 V. Sandys, 525, 52S v. Shipley, 1139 IK Smith, 2072, 2226 V. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 2019 V. Tompkins, 201 1 V. Upshaw, 1699 V. Vedder, 811, 2098, 2110 V. Walker, 161 1, 1767. V, Wallace, igoi, 1928 7'. Wenlock, 1056 V. Wilkinson, 2291 V. Wilson, 2242 V. Winson, 2219 Doa d., 1), Scott, 1339 Campfield v. Johnson, 1751 Campion v. Cotton, 959 Canal Commissioners, v. People, loi Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., i860, 2188 Canby's Lessee v. Porter, 51/, 635, 636, 637, 1367 Cancey v. Strove, 1024 Candler v. Tillet, 1733 Candy v. Stradley, 1983 Canedv v. Haskins, 415 Canfield v Fairbanks, 2345 V. Ford, 23, 83, 88, 228, 19S0 V. Shear, 2017 Canfranque z'. Bumell, 2056 Caiinaughton x>. Sands, 1400 Cannel v. Buckel, 647 Canning v. Canning, 344 V. Piiikham, 2354 Cannon v. Apperson, 265 v. Cannon, 2353 1). Copeland, 123 V. Folsom, 1247 V. Hare, 740 V. Wilber, 1151; 7/. Trotuman, 1545, 157S, 1595, 1777 Cantagrel v. Van Lupin, 2298 Cantrell v. Fowler, iig6 Cape Fear Nav. Co. v. Wilcox, 1869 Capen v. Peckham, 106, in, 112, 113, 116, 1186 V. Richardson, 1538 Capner v. Flemingtou Mining Co., 1153, 2187 Cappell's Estate,' 975 Capper v. Sibley, 1020 Car V. Elliso'i. 376 Carberry v. Willis, 2207, 2242, 2245 Card V. Jaffray, 2049 V. Patterson, 908 Cardigan v. Armitage, 93 Cardington t>. Armitage, 90 Cardross's Settlement, 7??, 1827 Cardwell, Re, 1720 Care v. Keller, 930 Carell v. Cuddtngton, 433, 446 Carey v. Buntain, 731, 734, 741 V. Rawson, 2002, 2040, 2049 Cargile v. Wood, 751, 752, 789 Carin v. Carin, 967 Carithers v. Stuart, 2172 Carle v. Monkhouse, 1207 Carleston v. Rugg, 5 Carleton v. Byington, 2120 V. Cate, 2248 Carley v. Lewis, 2261, 2262, 2263, 2264 Carlies v. Howland, 2005, 2006 Carlin v. Chappel!, gr, 2233 V. Paul, 2218 •V. Ritter, m, 112, 145 Carlisle*s Appeal, 1021 Carlisle v. Cooper, 2242 Carll V. Butman, 783, 802, 803, 2074, 21S2 Carlton v. Buckner, 2007 V. Carleon, 3 V, Dorset, 794 V. Jackson, 805, 806, 808, 2134 Carlyle v. Cannon, 310 V. Patterson, 1923 Carlyon v. Loveriiig, 2227, 2238 Carmack v. Masterston, 998 Carmichael z<. Buck, 1746 V. Carmichael, 931 V, State, 595, 596, 752 Carnall z/. Duval, 2033, 2034 V. Wilson, 718, 733, 735, 736, 737, 739, 838, 881, 909 Can\es v. Pollt, 519, 746 Caro V. Metropolitan Elevated R. Co., 2, 3 Carondelet v. Lannon, 102S, 1158 V. St. Louis, 2192 V. Wolfert, 1151 Caroon v. Cooper, 801, 817 Carpenter v. Bowen, jggS V. Canal Co., 1783 V. Carpenter, 1664, 1713, 1714, 1723, 1725, 1728, 1998, 2055 V. Collins, 1334 V. Davis, 652, 701 V. Denoon, 516, 517 V. Dexter, 2364 V. Garret, 593, 598, 599, 615 V. Griffin, 934 V. Herrington, 1514 V, Jones, 1267, 1297 V. Koons, 2154, 2179, 2180 V. Logan, 2108 V. McBride, 1740, 1764, 1777 V. Moores, 2125 V, Providence Washington Ins. Co., 2089, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2117 1). Robinson, 1757 zi. Thompson, 1148, 1218, 1348 V. United Srates, 1276, 1291, 1292, 2261 V. Walker, 122, 123 V. Weeks, 764, 766 V. Wescott, 1871 7'. Williamson, 2151 Carpentier v, Brenham, 2135, 2150 7'. Williamson, 2146, 2321, 2322 Carper v. Mumger, 2101 Carr, Petitilioner, 1981 Can- V. Allison, 1088 V. Brady, 722, 723 V. Caldwell, 1491, 1497, 1498 V. Carr, 779, 2045 V. Clough, 2343 V, Dodge, 1909 V. Ellison, 1009, 1088, 1089 V. Estill, 324, 325 7/. Givens, 585, 606, 612, 1911 V. Hobbs, 2004 V. Hodge, 2089 V. Holbrook, 2040 V. Hoxie, 2354 V. Ireland, 76 V. Rising, i459t 1465, 2044,2052, 2054 V. Wallace, 2191 Carradine v. Carradine, 1694 V. O'Connor, 2159 Carrick v. Errington, 1638 Carrier v. Perley, 1136 V. Sears, 986, 1032 Carrig V. Dee, 2223 Carrington v. Herrin, 1457 V. Herrion, 1398 V. Roots, 50, 51 Carroll v. Ballance, 1163, 1164, 3998, 2079 V. Carroll's Lessee, 940, 1516 V. Gallion, 2296, 2297 V. Hancock, 1568 V. Lee, 1561 •V. Newton, 80 V. Renick, 646, 1609 TXVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Carroll v. Van Rennsselaer, 2004 Carruthers v. Humphrey, 1999 Carshore v. Murray, 960 Carskadon z'. Torreyson, 1685 Carson v, Rlakey, 1755 v. Burnet, 2295 ?/. Carson, 1631 7'. Coleman, 2325 V. Crigler, 2250 zf. Foley, 1626 7'. Godley, 1054, 1066, 1202 v. Marshall, 1644 V. Murray, 905, 906, gio Doe d., 7^. Baker, 1255, 1278 Carstairs v. Taylor, 1054 Carter 7'. Balfour, 706 , 7'. Barnardiston, 970, 973, 987 V. Reals, 1920 z'. Bennett, 1781, 2103, 211O V Burr, 21, 2268 7'. Cantrell, 651, 1366 z>. Carter, 1506, 2046 z>. Castleberry, 1624 V. Chadron, 2363 V. Crawley, 19 V. Dale, 588,656, 677, 678, 679, 680, 1372 7'. Denman, 729 V. Eveleigh, 1375 V. Goodin, 802, 928 z*. Goodman, 1468 V. Goodwm, 782, 901, 902 7>. Gregory, 2r2 V. Hammett, 1114, 1117, 2262, 2264 z/. McQuade, 1949 V. McMichael, 461 V. Montgomery, 1649 v. Murcot, 2ig8 V. Palmer, 1708 7f. Parker, S41 Tf. Peak, 1093 z>. Peun, i8go 7>. Reddish, 321 V. Rockett, 2114, 2118, 2119 V. Rolland, 1727 V. Taylor, 811, 1993, 2097, 2137 t>. Town of La Grange, 12 14 V. Tyler, 462 7'. Walker, 782 v. Walter, 2274 V. Warne, 1115 V. Warner, 11 14 V. Williams, 598, 599, 607, 608, 615 Cartwright v. Miller, 1891, 1S92 V. Pulney, 1973 7/. Wise, 1640 Caruthers v. Caruthers, 952, 955, 956 V. Humphrey, 2129, 2131 V. Wilson, 865 Carver v. Jackson ex d, Astor,_io48, 2300 7'. Pecks, 2082, 2083 7'. Richards, 1040 7'. Smith, 1919, 1932, 1944, 1952 Carwardine v. Carwardine, 1569 Carwin, District Township of, v. Moorhead, 995 Cary v. Cary, 1629 V. Daniels, 1092, 2211 2f. Folsom, 2154 z/. Willis, 1879 Casad 7/. Hughes, T083 Casamayos v. Strode, 2o8r Casboard v. Ward, 1658 Casbume 7>. English, 2172 V. Tnglis, 689 7>. Scarfe, 509, 592, 599, 611, 1996, 2063, 2084, 2 1 68 Case 7>. Aniett, ic6 7'. Case, 751, 1801 v. Codding, 1633, 1634, 1646, 1651 7'. Erwin, 1777 7>. Gerrish, 1623 7'. James, 2124 7'. Heart, 1238 Case v. McCabe, 2002 Case of Private Road, 22 n Casey v. Buttolph, 1580, 2319 t/. Buttulph, 237 7/. Casey, 1707, 1769 &. Gregory, 1169, 1170, 1222 V. Inloes, 1768, 1773, 2291 V. Rawson, 2357 Caskey v. Brewer, 415 Caslerz*. Shipmau, 2246 Cason V. Hubbard, 908 Casper v. Walker, 265 Casporus 7/ Jones, 870 Cass V. Martin, 511. 783, 802, 21S2 V Thompson, 797. 821, 940 Cass County Bank 7'. Webber. 1385, 1392 Cassanave v Brooke, 519 Cassell 7/. Coake, 536 z>. Cooke, 306, 309, 321, 331, 332, 333 V. Ross, 1407, 1409, 1413, 1451, 1454. 1498, 1499, T717, 1756, 1778 Casselman v. Packard, 1384, 1386, 1387, 1417, 1431, M33. i435» 1436, 1442 Cassidy v. LeFevre, 1248 Cassily 7f. Rhodes, 46, 49 Castle z'. Palmer, 1481, 1503 Castleman v. Beit, 2064 Castleton f. Langdon, 1850 Castner e'. Walrod, 588 Caston V. Caston, 872, 947 Castro 7'. Illes, 720 V. Tennent, 291 Caswell V. Crane, 1013 V. Districh, 1229, 1231, 1233, 1234, ^235, 1239 Cate 7>. Thayer, 2357 Cater v. Eveleigh, 1375 Catesby's Case, 13 11 Cathcart's Appeal, 2099 Cathcart 7>. Bowman, 1093 7>. Robinson, 1697 V. Turner, 2272 Cathedral Church, Matter of, 29 Catherwood v' Caslor, 595 7/. Catherwood, 1652 Catholic Mutual Benevolent Asso. v. Finiane, 2280 Cathorpe, Ex parte, 1721 Catlin -v. Hayden, 1306 V. Kidder, 1897, 1913 V. Milner, 1365 V. Munger, 151 1 V. Ware, 789, 791, 822, 840, 841, 845, 900, 902, 909 v. Washburn, 1309, 2363 Caton V. Caton, 998 Catskill Bank v. Gray, 1241, 1242 Catterall v, Sweetman, 597 Catterlin v. Armstrong, 2067, 2171 Cattley v Arnold, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1306, 1320, 132.S Cauffman v. Cauffman, 942, 949 Caufman v. Presbyterian Congregation of Cedar Springs, 490 V. Say re, 2144 Caujole V, Ferrie, 595, 596, 757, 759 Cauifield r'. Maguire, 509 Caulk V. Florida, 2319 71. Fox, 237 Caulkins 7'. Fry, 1033 Cavan 7>. Doe d. Pulteney, 942, 1039 Cavanaugh 71. Clinch, 1130, 1132 7/. Peterson, 2119 V. Smith, 1427 Cave 7'. Mackenzie, 1644 Cavender n. Cavender, 1661 V. Smith, 717, 885 Caw V. Robertson, 1S50 Ceanies v. Irving, 1707 Cecconi v. Redden, 1095 Cecil 71, Salisbury, 985 Center v. Pillinghurst, 2154 Keferences are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. XCVll Center v. P. & M, Bank, 2103, 2106 Central Bank v. Copeland, 641, 2060 Central Branch R. Co. v. Fritz, 63, 139 Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell, 2327 Central Gold Min. Co. v. Piatt, 2327 Central Mills Co. v. Hart, 2270 Central Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Connecticut Mut. L. lus. Co., 1761 Central Park Extension, Matter of, 714, 796, 873 Central R. Co. zk Greely, 2327 V. Hetfield, 2325 w. Macon, loig Central Trust Co v Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 2066 Centrill v. Risk, 915 Cesar w. Karutz, mo Chadbom, Doe d., v. Green, 1303, 1314, 1333 Chadwick v Felt, 1612 7'. Island Beach Co., 2069 V. Moore, 1511 V. Parker, 1060, 1154, 1157 7/. Perkins, 1591 V. Woodward, 1054 Chaffee v. Dodge, 286 V. Franklin, 813 Chafron r'. Cassady, 2305 Chahoon v. HoUenback, 1773 Cliarne zk Wilson, 1456 Chaires v. Brady, 2046 Chalker v. Chalker, 1861, 1R67, 1868, 1869 Challefoux v. Ducharme, 1897, 1917, 1919 Challonerz'. Davies, 11 64 Chalmer v. Bradley, 1778, 1782, 17S3 Chalmers v. Wright, 2075 Chalmonally v, Clinton, 2303 Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 225, 596, 712, 757 V. Crane, 297, 1548, 2319, 2321 7}. Gardner, 2144 •u. Godfrey, 1016 V. Lyell, 1450, 1467 V. Marshall, 2304 ■V. Neale, 2254 V. Sprague, 2363 •V. Steams, 1683 V. Taylor, 77, 1689 V. Thompson, 288, 300, 688, 1594, 1596, 1606, 1796, 1997, 1998, 2062, 2077 Chamberlin v. Donohne, 1269, 1293, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1309, 1322, 1326 Chambers v. Fox, 1471 V. Goldwin, 2051 z'. Handley, 589 V. Maudlin, 1712 V. Minchin, 1732, 1733 V. Pleak, 1915 V, Penland, 1449 V. Perry, 173 1 7j. Vignaud, 1297 Chambliss v. Jordan, 1512, 1513, 1517 Chambovet v. Cagney, 646 Champion v. Bostwick, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244 V. Spencer, 1977 Champlin v Foster, 2140 V. Laytin, 2061, 2130 V. Williams, 2150 Champney v. Coope, 520, 1580, 2097, 2098, 2127, 2134 Chance v. Hinman. 1102 Chancellor v. Poole, 2265 Chancy v. Strong, 1363, 1368, 1369 V. Chaney, 814 Chandler v, Cheney, 1930, 193 1> »938, 1942. i9S2 V. Dyer, 2073, 2139, 2140, 2170 V. Hollingsworth, 658, 794 V. Rowland, 1240, 1242, 1243 V. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, 2245 V. Pocock, 76 •u. Price, 322 V. Ricker, 1898,1913 V. Rider, 1814 Chandler v. Temple, 2035 V. Thurston, 48, 538, 1231, 1235, 1263, 1268, 1297 V. White, 2301 & Hart V. Rossiter, 712 Chanery v. Stevens, 207 Chaney's Admrs. v. Chaney's Admrs., 813 Chanome v. Fowler, 920 Chapel V. Bull, 730, 1095, 2353 Chapin v. Broder, 2167 V. Chicopee University Soc, 2101 V. First Universalist Society, 299, 1607 'v. First Universalist Soc. of Chicopee, 286, 1659, 1S12, 1813 V. Foss, 2271 V. Hill, 934, 935, 941, 956 V. Schafer, 1031 V. School District, 1540, 1555, 1850, 1972 V, Wright. 2175 Chaplin V. Chaplin, 445, 611, 68g, 702, 781, 1566 V. Givens, 1660 V. Sawyer, 141 1 V. Simmon's Heirs, 736 V. Tillinghast, 181 Chapman v. Allen, 1947 V. Armistead, 731 V. Beardsley, 2005 V. BHssett, 1606, 1797 z'j Bluck, 1000 V. Brown, 1604 V. Chapman, 1952, 1953, 2002 V. County Commissioners of Douglass, 1633 7). Glassell, 1551, 1561 V. Gray, 28, 225, 969, 974, 975, 976, 1047, 1225 V. Harney, 1060, 1154, 1155, 2256 V. Holmes, 1093 V. Kendall, 1092 V. Kirby, 1060, 1151 V. I'Ong, 45 V. Martin, 2274 V. McGrew, 1044 V. Miller, 591 V. O'Brien, 2302 V. Porter, 2085, 2087, 2184 Vy Prickett, 2 V, Robertson, 367, 368, 720, 2057, 2058, 2288, 2289 V. Schroeder, 776, 806, 878, 931 V. Smith, 2088 V. Tanner, 2004 V. Towner, 1258, 1308, 1314 v. Turner, 2168 V. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., no, 134, 137 V. West, 2152, 2154 V. Wright, 1061, 1154 Chappell V, Allen, 2107, 2147 V. Brewster, 401 V. Gregory, 1200 V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2240, 2241, 2242 Charles v. Andrews, 955 V. Charles, 645 •v. Dubose, 1620, 1768 Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge Co., 2291 Charless v, Lamberson, 1380, 1386, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, H45' ^4"^) H5^. 1483. i502r 1518 V. Rankin, 2231, 2232, 2233 Charlewood v. Bedford, 1042 Charlton v. Miller, 773 Charter v. Otis, gi6 V. Stevens, 2161 Chase's Case, 776, 778, 779, 790, 814, 816, 8.10, 844, 845, 848, 874, 875, 885, 902, 903, 2045 Chase v. Abbott, 1409, 1454, 1523, 1934, 207S, 2079 z'. Alley, 927, 951 XCVUl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Chase v. Creed, 2034 V. Chase, 660, 1631 z/, Cheney, 34 V. Hazelton, 550, 552, 556, 558, 561 V. Lockerman, 1997, 20S5, 2103 7). McDonald, 2140 , V. McLellan, 2174 V. Peck, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2009 ■u. Silverstone, 2230 V. Sutton Manuf. Co., 2244 V, Wingate, 78, 79, 106 V, Woodbury, 2076,2153,2176, 2178, 2181, 2183 Chasemore v. Richards, 2230 Chastain v. Smith, 1643 Chatfield v. Wilson, 2248 Chatard v. O'Donovau, 1287, 128S Chatham v. Bradford, 2122 Chatterton v. Fox, 1092 Chattle 1). Pound, 1214 Qhavener v. Wood, 2172 Chaworth z*. Phillips, 1123, 1124 Cheatham v. Jones, 1421 Chedel v. Millard, 1028 Chedworth v. Edwards, 1783 Cheek v. Waldrou, 885, 940, 1363, 2160 Cheese, Doe d., v. Creed, 1309 Cheeseborough, Matter of, 5 V. Green, 64, 65, 507, 2234 V. Millard, 2137, 2164, 2176, 2177, 2178 Cheetham v. Hampson, 1068, 1198, 1201, 1202 Cheever v. Parsons, 1251 V. Pearson, 234, loig, 1257, 1260, 1263, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1296, 2212 V. Parley, 2095 V. Rutland, 207S Chegan v. Young, 2264 Chellis V. Steams, 2077 Chelton v. Green, 2065 Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 69 Chenery 7'. Stevens, 1563, 1565, 2118,2316,2319, 2334 Cheney v. Arnold, 751, 752, 757 V. Bonnell, 1140 V. Pierce, 1362, 1370 V. White, 2309 Cherrington v. Abney Mill, 2222, 2247 Cherry v. Bowen, 2050, 216S s/. Monro, 2124, 2150 •V. Stein, 2223, 2229 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Paine, 43 Cheseldine v. Brewer, 751 Cheshire v. Payne, 654 Cheshire Nat. Bk. v. Jewett, 49, 51 Chesley v. Thompson, 1905, 1969 V. Welch, 538, 1205, 1285 Chesline v. Lewis, 1330 Chesline Lines Committee v. Lewis, 1341 Chess V. Chess, 1016 Chess-Charlye Co. v. Purtell, 293 Chesson -v. Chesson, 509 Chester v. Chester, 326 V. Dickerson, i960, 1961, 1962, 1964 •V. Wheelwiight, 2031 V. Willan, 1970 Chesterfield v. Jansen, 15S6, 1645 Chesterman v. Gardner, 1165 Chestnut v. Shane's Lessee, 904, 2332, 2333 Chestnut Hill Tumpipe Co. v. Piper, 2243 Chetham v, Williams, 2189 Chetwood v. Winston, 415, 416 Chew's Appeal, 267 Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 986 V. Bamett, 2018 V. Barrett, 2019 V. Chew, 415, 449, 469, 708, 760, 762, 785, 788 7-. Commissioners of Southwark, 599, 603, 604, 611, 612, 68g, 699, 700 V. Farmers' Bank, 431, 938 V. Hyman, 2170 V. Morton, 2291 Chew V. Weems, 415 Chew's Admrs. v. Beall, 1373, 1562 Chicago V. Garrity, 2268 V. Larned, 2325 V. O'Brennan, 1201 V. Robbins, 1516 Chicago & Eastern 111. R. Co. o. Hay, 1781 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. -u. Borough of Ft. Howard, 98 Chicago R. Land Co. -u. Peck, 2136 Chicago & Pacific R. Co. v. Stein, 1014 Chicago K. N. R. Co. %>. Ozark Township, 233 Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Howard, 1041 V. Kennedy, 1777 Chicago, T. & M. C. Ry. Co. z-. TitleringtoJi, 1469, 1474 Chicago, etc., Co. v, U. S. Coal & Iron Co., 983. Chick V. Rollins, 2093, 2094 z'. Willetts, 1999, 2063, 2076, 2079 Chickerley's Case, 1050 Chickering v, Faile, 1883, 2151 ■V. Fullerton, 2152 Chidester v. Consolidated Ditch Company, 498 Chighizole v. Le Baron, 1020 Child V. Baylie, 433, 437 V. Chappell, 2211, 2240 •u. Gibson, 1715 V. Sampson, 987 V. Sand, 1902 V. Singleton, 1447 ChiJders zi. Bumgarher, 605, 607, 612, 630 V. Childers, 1691 V. Smith, 2250, 2251 Childress v. Cutter, 1922 Childs 7'. Childs, 689, 2062 V. Clark, 1108, nog, 2262, 2264 V. Dolan, 2067 V. Drake, 758 V. Jordan, 1615 V. Smith, 737, 739, 740, 743 V. Westcott,' 1024 Chiles y.Bartleson, 534 V. Coleman, 2359 V. Conley, 1916, 2338, 2352 Chilton V. Henderson, 441, 448 V. Lyons, 2005 V. Niblett, 1282 V. Wilson, 2299 Chinnary v. Blackman, 2066 Chinnubee v. Nicks, 831 Chinsley v. Langley, 260, 267, 268 Chipman t. Emeric, 1057, 1139, 1143, 1154 V. Tucker, 2033, 2035 Chirac v. Reinecker, 213, 359 Chisholm v. Chisholm, 141 1 V. Georgia, 195 Chissom v. Hawkins, 2272 Chittenden v. Berney, 2075 Cholmondeley v. Cholmondeley, 1630 V. Clinton, 473, 1545, 1577, 1736, 1741, 17S4, 1785, 2091, 2184 Chopin V. Runte, 1482 Choppell V. Gregory, 1054 Chorpenning's Appeal, 1724, 1766 Choteau v. Thompson, 976, 1225 Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2192 7/. Jones, 2366 Chowning v. Cox, 2037 Chretien v. Douey, 1320 Christ Church Hospital v. Fuchsel; 2254 Christ's Hospital v. Budgin, 1887 Christian v. Crocker, 1239 V. Dripps, 63, 138 V. Ellis, 1958 V. Newberry, 8ro Christian Union v. Yount, 367 Christie's Appeals, 974, 1141 Christie, Succession of, 1397, 1407, 1410 Christie v. Gage, 489 V. Herrick, 2147 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. XCIX • II73. II74 Christine v. Witherill. 1989 Christmas v. Mitchell, 1777 Christopher v. Austin, 11295 v. Sparke, 2174 V. Williams, 1479 Christy 2t. Alfred, 2299 V. Dyer, 1386, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1491, 1492. 1497 V. McBride, 1713, 1714, 1723, 172S 7'. Pridgeon, 15 16 Chritien ?/. Doney, 1006 Chudleigh's Case, 410, 1534, 1535, 1539, 1545, 1551, 1554, 1556, 1557. 1558, 15^4^ 1565. 1566, 156S, 1570, 1571 Church V. Brown, 257, 1096, 1097 T. Burghardt, 212, 2296, 2297 z'. Chapin, 1623 T. Ghurch, 814, 831, 1622 z'. Edwards, 454 v. Gilman, ioi6 7'. Griffith, 122, 1226 7'. Imperial Gas Light & Cobe Co-, 1332 7'. Mundy, 307 V. Ruland, 1701 7j. Schoonmaker, 1305 V. Seeley, 2262 v. Sterling, 1620, 1622, 1643 V. Wells, 31, 37, 38, 40, 83 Church of Avquakcanonk v. Ackerman's Exrs., 938, 948 Churchill 7>. Dubben, 307 z'. Hudson, 635, 639 1'. Hulbert, 1356 V. Hunt, iioi, 2025, 2026 7'. Marks, 260, 272, 1677 Churchman v. City of Indianapolis, 1781 z'. Martin, 2325 Chure zk Seeley, 2268 Chute z>. Washburn, 1864 Chynoweth f. Tannery, 2213 Cibak 7'. Klekr, 2241 Cibel V. Hills, 1174 Cilley V. Huse, 1957 Cilly 7'. Hawkins, 1245, 2246 7'. Huse, 786 Cincinnati College v. Yeatman, 78, 976 Cissna v. Haynes, 2153 Citizens' Bank z>. Knapp^ 123 Citnerz*. McRea, 799 City 7'. City, 795 City Bank of Baltimore v. Smith, 1870, 1872 City of Brooklyn, 1248 City of Chicago z/. Laflin, 68 v. McGinn, 68 V. O'Brennan, iigg City of Cleveland v. State Bank, 1832 City of Dubuque zf. Miller, 13 19 City of Logansport v. Justice, 1247 V. Seybold, 2325 City of London v, Greyme, 556, 562, 564 zj. Mitford, 1008, 1009 V. Nash, 1083 City of Philadelphie v. Girard's Heirs, 1604, 1675, 1676, 1680, 16S2 City of St. Louis v. Kamie, 1193 z/. Laclede Gas Light Co., 1923 City of Salem v. Eastern R. Co., 4 City of San Antonio v, French, 1133 City Council zf. Moorhead, 1182 City Council of Montgomery v. Montgomery & W. Plank Road Co. ,982 City Nat. Bank z/. Hamilton, 1635 Claflin V. Boston & A, R. Co., 243, 2240, 2242 z/. Carpenter, 54, 55- 2213 Clagett z/. Hall, 2349 Claiborne v. Handerson, 781, 820, 1543 Claires z/. Brady, 2047 Clancey v. Onondago Pine Salt Mnfg. Co., 1020 z/. Stephens, 1448 Clancy z/. Byrne, 1083, 1198, 1199 Clanvickard v. Sidney, 1366, 1369, 1370 Clap :'. Draper, 56, 2357 Clapp V. Bromaghan,'i897, 1917, 1970, 1982, 2295 z*. Coble, ii6g, 1 170 z>. Inhabitants of Stoughton, 1359, 1360, 1363* 1364 z/. Maxwell, 2167 V. Noble, 1131, 1316, 1327, 1329 V Paine, 1310, 1315, 1334, 1351 V. Stoughton, 1024, 136S, 1369, 1849 Clare v. Appleby, 2108 V. Hunt, 923 7'. National, etc., 1194, 1195 Clark V. Akres, 2355 -71. Allen, 2340 V. Babcock, 1066 z'. Baker, 228, 416, 420, 423, 424, 2091, 2300, 2358, 77. Baltimore, 671 7'. Bancroft, 2164 zr. Barnes, 1004 z'. Battorf, 724, 7S9, S46 z/. Beach, 688, 1997, 2062, 2077 7'. Bell, 2009 7'. Brown, 2125 TJ. Burgh, 1360 zr. Caldwell, 1033 V. Christ's Church, 1138 z/. Clark, 517,, 5S5, 596, 653, 662, 664, 670, 680, 683, 769, 773, 810, 920, 1024, 1065, 1376, 1646, 1920, 1942, J951, 2222, 2270 V. Clark's Estate, 2260, 2261 V. Coudit, 2050, 2160 7'. Crego, 1S99, 1917 7'. Crownshaw, 125 V. Curtis, 2066 z>. Douglass, 1623 V. Dwelling-house, 632 7/. Eaton (Clark z'. Trust Co.), 1757, 1758 v. Eaton (Comr. of Friedman's Trust Co.), 1658 ■V. Everly, 1309 Zf. Farrington, 2014, 2016 z/. Field, 752 V. Foot, 568 7'. Fraley, 2273 z'. Graham, 368, 720, 2058, 2157, 228S, 2289, 2339. 2352 V. Griffin, 916, 934, 935, 955 V. Harvey, 120S, 1319, 1320, 1676 z/. Henry, 2037, 2039, 2042, 2050, 2168 7/. Herring, 977, iiii, 1249 V. Holden, 552, 557, 559, 560, 566, 1139 7'. Hornthaf, 1730, 1842 z'. Howland, 1134, 1317 z'. Hume, 2266 z>. Hunt, 2008, 2009 V. Jones, 105a. 1058, 1138, 1140 r'. Kelliher, 1356 7'. Koer.ig, 1474, 1485 V. Laughlin, 810 V. Lawrence, 2230 V. Livering, 1997 7'. Lott, 661, 662, 1359 V. Lyon, 2038 V. Mackin,2i36, 2172 z/. McClure, 209, 210, 2297 z/. Makenna, 1375 V. Martin, 268 z'. Munroe, 766, 783, 804, 829, 830 V. Muzzey, 847, 848 z/. New England Mut. F. Ins. Co.,2113 7'. Nolan, 1408, 1472, i486 7>. Ownes, 477 7'. Parker, 1979 7'. Prentice, 2149 7'. Redman, 903 7'. Reyburn, 2062, 2187 7'. Rhoades, 1003, 1330 7'. Richardson, 729, 863 7/. Riddle, 1754, 1755 z/. Robins, 2090 7/. Rochester, 2325 TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Clark V. Scott, 2gi V. Shannon, 1378, 1387, 1419, 1446, 1454, 1475 V. Sibley, 2184 V. Sidway, 1956 V. Slaughter, 661 V. Smith, 1039, 1256, 2088, 2090 -v. Swift, 729, 1092 V. Taintor, 1662 •u. Tennison, 271, 1165 V. Thompson. 192a V. Tinker, 2194 V. Titcomb, 2342 V. Trawick, 1517 T). Troy, 2363 V. Wheelock, 1273, 1274, 1293, 1294 V. White, 2328 V. Williams, 197 V. Wilson, 2089, 2 1 18 V. Wright, 1087 Doe d., V. Smaridge, 1136, 1303, 1307, 1314, 1333, 1335 Clarke's Appeal, 638, 1369 Clarke's Estate, 500 Clarke v. City of Rochester, 2335 V. Clarke, 572, 1936 z>. Clarke's Admr., 1219, 1221 V. Cordis, 1910 V, Cummiugs, 557, 1141 V. Fuller, 999 V. Rowland, 1136, 1315 V. McCreary, 715, 2332 ^. McClure, 2n 1). Merrill, 1052 V. Mikell, 309 V. Rannie, 1205 V. Reybuni, 2084 V. Royal Panopticon, 2159 V. Samson, 1989 V. Southwick, 2237 V. Swaile, 1775 V. Trawick, 1512 V, Wagner, 2298 V. Windham, 270 Clarkson v. Doddridge, 2105 Clary v. Fryer, 1810, 181 1 V. Owen, 112, 2096 Clason V. Corley, zo66, 2156, 2162 ] V, Norris, 2177 Classen a. Carroll, 13 16 V. Classen, 595 Claussen v. Lafrenz, 1539 Clavering v. Clavering, 495, 561, 1791 V. Ellison, 1867 Clawson v. Hutchinson, 671 Clay V. Freeman, 786 V. Richardson, 1475 V. Sanders, 737 V. Wren, 2079 Clay, Heirs of, v. Clay, 216 Clayton's Case, 2256 Clayton v, Blakey, 981, 1013, 125S, 1264, 1322 7>. Cagle, 1781 V. Clayton, 302, 330 7'. Freet, 2331 V. Wardell, 751. 758, 759 Clearwater v. Rose, 531, 532, 2105, 2106 Cleary v. McDowell, 1365 Clegg V. Rowland, 1038 Clemence v. Steere, 506, 541, 542, 543, 556, 557, 561, 563, 564, 565. 566, 575, 577, 578, "53 Clemens v. Broomfield, 1017, 1042 V. Clemens, 1548, 1603 Clement v. Bennett, 2038 &. Greenhouse, 2352 V. Hadlock, 1240, 1244 Clements v. Bostwick, 304 V. Broomfield, 998 V. Glass, 417 V. Lacey, 141 1, 1525 V. Lacy, 1407, 1457 Clements v. Welles, 1185, 177S Clemm v. Wilcox, 12 18 Clemmins v. Gotshall, 2303 Clepper v. Livergood, 679, 6S0, 695, 701 Clere's Case, Sir Edw., 1538, 1566, 1805, 1844 Clere v. Brooks, 366 Clerk V. Clerk, 1033 Cleve V. Veer, 2154 Cleveland v. Boerum, 2152 V. Cohors, 21 XI V. Crawford, 489 V. Flogg, 2296 V. Hallett, 280, 284, 287, 289, 290, 1555, 1563, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1710, 1796, 1813 7/. Martin, 2133 Cleves V. Willoughby, 1054, 1066, 1175, 1180, I200 Clews V, Bathurst, 661 Cliff z'. Gibbons, 307 Clifford V. Hare, 2248 V. Watts, 1 168, 1 175 Cliftw. Clift, 312 V. White, Si I, 1580, 2098 Clifton V, Clifton, 1364 V. Lombe, 1629 Climie v. Wood, 106, 122, 127, 133 Clinan v. Cooke, 999 Cline V. Inlow, 2 151 7/. Upton, 1466 Clinefelter r. Ayers, 1810, 1842 Clinton v. Cox, 2175 V. Fly, 266 V. Myers, 69, 2225, 2227, 2228 V. Westbrook, 1997, 1998 Clinton National Bank v. Manwarring, 2083 Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v, Gardner, 1131, 1316, 1317 Clock V. Gilbert, 2299 Clore V. Lambert, 133, 135 Close V. Hunt, 745 Closs V. Boppe, 1636 Cloud V. Calhoun, 1599, 1786, 1788 Clough V. Bond, 1718, 1719, 1733 V. Elliott, 777, 802 V. Hosford, 1283, 1292 Clow V. Derby Coal Co., 2152 Clowdsley v. Pelham, 1630 Clowes V. Dickenson, 907, 2076, 2154, 2180 Cloyes V. Sweetser, 2357 Clubb V. Wise, 1479, 1506 Clun's Case, 497, 1172 Clun, Doe d., v. Clarke, 1309 Clure V. Commissioner, 693 Class's Case. 1051 Clute V. Bool, 1798 Clyat V. Batteson, 51S Clymer v. Dawkins, 1914 Clyner v. Dawkins, 1913 Coakley v. Mahar, 1023, 1893 V. Perry, 1349 Coal Co. V. Fry, 1659 Coal Creek Mining Co. v. Ross, 2301 Coale V. Barney, 1981 V. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., 1153 Coalter v. Hunter, 2213 Coan 7'. Mole, 1322, 1334 Coane v. Parmentier, 340 Coape V. Arnold, 1694 Coars V. Holderness, 1638 Coates' Appeal, 347, 1632 Coates 7'. Cheever, 89, 494, 495. 561, 712, 742, 803, Sio, 8ii, 812, 841'. 853 7'. Woodworth, 164S Coats V. New York City, 40 Cobb V. Biddle, 60 V. Davenport, 2198 V. Dyer, 2069, 2136 7'. Kibb, 2260 V. Knight, 1792 7'. Lavelle, 1014 V. New England Ins. Co., 1051 Keferences are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CI Cobb w. Stokes, 1310, 1333 v. Thornton, 2167 t: Webb, 1462 Cobbey v. Knapp, 1474 Cobble V. Tomliuson, 824 Cobel V. Cobel, 2252, 2259 Coble V. Nonemaker, 1777 Coburn v. Holies, 210 V. Palmer, 1149, 1213, 1266 Cochran t. Cochran, 506 V. Darcy, 1512, 1513 V. Goodell, 1S85, 2041, 2125 71. Guild, 1094 V. Kemey, igrg, 19^5, 1945 V. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 1014, 1015 z'. Utt, 2024 V. Van Surlay, 2323, 2324, 2327, 2329, 2330. 2332 Cochrane v. Libby, 757 V, Willis, 1697 Cock V. Goodfellow, 1715 Cocke V. BaiUey, 804, S32 V. Hanuum, 1464 Cocker's Exrs. ?'. Phillips, 762 Cockerell v. Dickens, 368, 719, 2057, 2289 Cockerill v. Armstrong, 762, 763, 800 Cocket f. Sheldon, 373 Cockran v. O'Hern, 654, 655, 681, 683, 684, 685, 6S7, 699, 1371, 1372, 1674 Cockrell v. Curtis, 1454 Cockrill V. Armstrong, 823, 928, 1592, 1593, 1630 V. Downey, 58 V. Morrey, 339 Cockson V. Cook, 1074 Coddiugton v. Dunham, 1079 Coder v. Huling, 1956, 1963 Codling v. Johnson, 2205, 2218 Codman v. Hall, 1026, 1925 V. Jenkins, 2271 V. Johnson, 505, 1102 V. Winslow, 1913 Codwise v. Taylor, 2009 Cody V. Quarterman, 996, 1212, 1283, 1293, 1294, 1299, 1306, 1319, 1334 Coe V. Bradley, 2304 V. Clay, 1065 V. Columbus, P. & Ind. R. Co., 98, 2038 V. Delaware & L, R. Co., 2018 v. Hobby, 996, 1162 V. McBrown, 98, 2019 V. Persons, 2322 V. Smith, 1381 V. Walcottville Manf. Co., 2292 V. Winters, 2121 V. Wolcottville, 591 Coffee V. Ruffin, 1717 Coffey V. Hunt, 2065 Coffin V. Argo, 19S9 v. Bramlitt, 1724 v. Coffin, 573 V. Heath, 1891 V. Loring, 2016 V. Lunt, 1270, 1271, 1274, 1285, 1304 Coffman v. Coffman, 780 z'. Huck, 1276, 2261 Cogan V. Cogan, 1569 Coggesgall, etc., Trustees of New Rochelle, v. Pelton, 1659 Coggs V. Bernard, 1191 Coghil V. Freelove, 2263 Cogley V. Browne, 1157 z>. Cushman, 201 1 Cogreve v. Dehon, 1947 Cogswell V. Cogswell, 506, 508, 510, 511, 943 V. Lippet, 894 V. Stout, 2134 V. Tibbetts, 887, 895 Cohen v. Broughton, 2274 7>. Dry Dock, East Broadway & B, R. Co., 1x95 t/. Dupont, ii66 V. Kyler, 120, 135, 136, 1727 Cohens v. Vir^ma, 1516 Cohier v. Trinity Church, 36 Cohi) V. Virginia Ins. Co., 632 Coit V. Comstock, 16S6, 1687 Cokerz/. Pearsall, 1027,2064 v. Smith, 2151 V, Whitlock, 2080 Colbum V. Hollis, 2297 v. Mason, 1912 r', Morrill, 1128, 1173, 1174 V. Morton, 1769 V. Richards, 2227 Colby V. Osgood, 1096 Colchester 7'. Roberts, 2220 Coldwell 71. Woods, 2040 Cole 7/. Cole, 757, 945, 986, 1407, 1410 V. Eastham, 2198 V. Gill, 1286, 1290, 1445, 1497, 1504 v. Laconia Savings Bank, 1443, i444r '445 7'. Lake Co., 1297, 1S49 V. Langley, 596, 757 V. McKey, 1197 V. Marple, 1514 V. O'Neil, 654 , V. Patterson, 2268 V. Pennoyer, 1031,2344 V. Rawlinsou, 309 zf. Robinson, 1033 V. Savage, 2071, 2112 V. Scott, 2006 V. Sewell, 1569 7'. Smith, 976 V. Sprowle, 2186, 2206 V. Stewart, 133, 2186 V. Terry, 1246 v. Van Riper, 587, 588, 633, 669, 896, 1362, 1377, 1514 v. Wade, 1663, 1731, 1778, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1833, 1841, 1842 V. Wolcottsville Mfg. Co., 1365 Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 96, 127, 145 Coleman's Appeal, 2244, 2247 Coleman's Estate, 204 Coleman 71. Anderson, 2335 V. Ballandi, 1509, 1513 7/. Beach, 1808, 1809 V. Billings, 2298 V. Chadwick, 92, 2233, 2237 V. Cocke, 1613, 1616 v. Coleman, 1883, 1972, 1973 V. De Wolf, 722, 723 V. Doe, 18 V. Duke of St. Albans, 2067, 2162 V. Grubb, 1973 V. Haight, 1084 V. Hutchenson, 1906 V. Lane, 1907 ■V. Rensselaer, 2082 v. Satterfield. 588, 1364 V. Stearns Mfg. Co., 106, 133 z>. Walker, 1784 V. Whitney, 2140 V. Witherspoon, 2067 V. Wooley, 1375, 1562 Coles 7/. Allen, 1622, 1760 V. Appleby, 2154, 2179, 2180 V. Coles, 6S9, 783, 800, 1671, 1961, 1962, igSo, igSi V. Forrest, 2152 V. Ragiiet, 2060 V. Sims, 1778, 1872 V. Soulsby, 1700 V. Trecothick, 1621, 1697, 1707, 1758, 1772 V. Wooding, 1973, 1976 Colgan V. McKeown, 750 V. Pellens, 221 Colgate 7;. Colgate, 919, 955, 965 V. Owing's Case, 903 Colgrove v. Gallman, 2671 Colham v. Bradford, 2119 Collam V. Hocker, 2240 cu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Collamer w, Hutchins, 1980 •u. Kelley, 1122, 1164 zr. Langdon, 2085, 2103 CoUard v. Hare, 1784 College Street, In re, 1102 CoUett V. Collett, 270 CoUey V. Merrill, 706 Collier's Case, 340, 343 Collier's Will, 1S37 Collier v. Blake, 1662 V. Brown, 1697, 1758 V, Collier's Exrs., 7 V. Corbett. 1901 V. McBeam, 1606 zi. Pierce, 2223, z/. Slaughter, 270, 271 V. Walters, 1579, 1693 CoUingswood v. Pace, 2287 •D. Pays, 236 Collins' Appeal, 1509 Collins V. Barrow, 1168, 1200 V. Blantem, 2059 V. Canty, 1344 V. Carlisle's Heirs, 536, 820, 821, 1593, 1630, 1815 V. Chaman's Heir, 75 V. Champ's Heirs, 77, 95 V. Dickinson, 1980 z'. Forrey, 764 z'. Harding, 984, 2250 V. Hasbrouck, 1104, nog, 1112, - 1113, 1143, "55 V. Hoxie, 2281 V. Johnson, 12S3, 12S6 V. Larenburg, 1373, 1562 V. Many, 1280 V. Marcy, 268 •u. Prentice, 2085, 2220 u. Rowe, 2068 V. Smitlt, 1621, 1707, 1769 V. Tillou's Admr., 2046 V. Torrey, 783, 800, 803, 2062 V. Torry, 2094 V. Warren, S37, 1957, 1964, 1965 z/. Willdin, 1124 V. Wood, 939 Doe d., V. Weller, 1025, 1264, 1323 Collins Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 259, 266, 269, 1972 V. Murray, 268 Collinson v. Lister, 1715 ColUs v. Kemp, 413 Colman w. Clements, 1913 If. Duke of St. Albans, 1027 Colony V. Dublin, 671 Colquhoun v. Atkinson, 2140, 2355 Colsten V- Chaudet, 1814 Colt V. Towle, 268 Colton V. Gorham, 2263 V. .^mith, 2091 Columbia National Bank v. Embree, 1949 Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 166S, 2113, 2114, 2117 Colville V. Miles, 1207 Colvin v. Worford, 974 Colwell V. Caper, 976 V, Carper, 1424 V. Woods, 2039 Colyear z;. Mulgrave, 2314 Coman -u. Lakey, 434, 1614 Comb's Case, 1043 Combs z/. Branch, 2250, 2252, 2258 V. Jordan, 2253 V. Young, 767, 801. 809 V. Young's Widow, 705, 744 Comby z^ McMichael, 1597, F796 Comer v. Chamberlain, 589, 592, 593, 623, 678 V. Sheehan, 2258 V. Shehan, 1028 Coming, Ex parte, 2002 Comins w. Comins, 211 Comly z". Strader, 72 r, 1376 Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Warren, 2130 Commercial Bank v. Corbett, 1426 Commercial Bank of Lake Erie v. Western Reserve Bank, 2154 Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Nolan, .^554 Commercial Bulletin Co., In re, 2263, 2266 Commercial Ins. Co. t. Spankneble, 239, 2116 Commercial Real Estate Assoc v. Parker, 2171 Commissioners v. Harman, 1287 V. Smith, 890 V. Walker, 1573, 15S5, 1610, 1670, 1671, 1680, 1681 V. Withers, 2325 Commissioners of Pilots z>. Clark, 9S2 Commissioners of the Sinking Fund z'. Walker, ^555» i656» ^^57» 1658, 1712, 1714, 171S, 1719, 1722 Commissioners Tippecanoe County :•. L. M. & B. R Co., 1019 Common v. Coupe, 2291 Commonwealth z>. Alger, 5, 194, 195, 198, igg, 200, 2323, 2325. 2328 z>. Blodgett, 4 V. Byrne, 2324 V. Carter, 4 V. Chapman, 149 z'. Charleston, 195 V. Cogan, 22 V. Cook, 1403 V. Cooley, 921 7'. Dennis, 921 zi. Eagle F. ins. Co., 1734 ». Essex Co., 2327 V. Franklin Insurance Co., 1114, 1173 V. Godley, 22 V. Intoxicating liquors, 4 ZI. Kennedy, 1919 V. Kensey, 1357 V. Knowlton, iiS, 149^ 458 z/. Lane, 753, 754, 755 V. Lay, 1403 V. Leach, 149 V. Lodge, 707 v. McAllister, 1719 z". McCaughey, 22 V. Marshall, 921 V. Martin's Exrs., 76 v. Mateer, 1788 V. Moltz, 1781 V. Munson, 595, 752 V. Phcenix Bank, r554 •V. Reading Savings Bank, 2041 •u. Richardson, 1029 V. Sheriff, 1003 w. Stauffer, 271, 1S58 V. Stremback, 50 V. Stump. 596, 752, 757, 759 V. Tewkesbury, 4, ,198 V. Thompson, 522 V. Tiffany, 9S2, 1036 z. Vincent, 71, 982, 1036 V. Walker, 1456 V. Weatherhead, 982 V. Wise, 22, 1036 V. York, 118, 458 Comparel v. Randall, ic20 Compton's Petition, 2206 Compton V. Allen, 1099 V. Oxenden, 1580, 2098 Comstock V. Comstock, 1452, 1524 V. Drohan, 2071, 2166 V. Hitt, 2068, 2070 ZI. Scales, 2020 V. Van Dusen, 2220 Comulet Co. zk Russell, 2364 Conant v. Brackett, 121 1 7'. Little, 739, 740,851, 852, 854 V. Smith, 1983, 1988 Conboy V. Kansas City &: S. W. R. Co., 1469, M73i 1474 Concord Bank z*. Bellis, 2345 Concord R. Co. v. Greeley, 232S References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cm Conde v. Shepherd, 2152 Condict, Executors of, v. King, 415, 418 Condit V. Neighbor, 2251, 2257 Condon v. Barr, 13 iS, 1326 Cone V. Dunham, 1581 V, Hasmilton, 2083 1'. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 2117 V. Woodward, 1154 Conger t^. Duryee. 1143, 11 56 V, Ring, 1769 V. Weaver, 1092 Congleton v. Pattison, 1071, 107S, 1079 Congregational Church v. Morris, 218, 219, 774 Congregational Society v. Fleming, 108, 112, 116 V. Morris, 750 V. Stack, 1850 Conkey v. Everett, 1666 v. Hart, 1511, 1517 Conkliu 7'. Conkliu, 322, 323, 1893 V. Egerton, 1752, 1835 V. Foster, 565, 976, 1415, 1424, 1502, 1519 V. Hinds, 2125 7'. Parsons, 104 V. White, 1342 Conkling v. King, 1058 Connally v. Hardwick, 1409 Connaughton v. Sands, 1398, 1483, i5i4( 1515 Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Eldredge, 1765 Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. -a. Crawford, 2170 Connell v. Connell, 909 1'. Lamb, 2253 V. Mayer, 2972 Connelly v. Belt, 2159 Connelly, 753 Conner v. Banks, 2106 V. Gerrard, 1792 T. Hawkes, 143 1 T'. Nichols, 1479, 1506 V. Shepherd, 552, 776, 807, 833 I'. Whitmore, 2091, 2103 ConnoU v. Todd, 2358 Connolly v. Branster, 928 V. Smith, 712 Connor, In re, 1465 Connor z/. Bradley, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1154 V. Clark, 135 V. Coffin, 45> 78. io3> 106, 13s V. Lewis, 1614 V. McMurray, 1382, 1450, 145S. H^?, M79 V. Shepherd, 707 V. Squiers, 135 V. Stephen, 777 V. Whitmore, 2084 Conover v. Conover, 2260 V. Hobart, 2069, 2071 V. Hoffman, 1806 V. Mutual Ins. Co., 239, 2115, 2116 V. Porter, 8g6 V. Warren, 2008 Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 688, 1992, 1993 V. Harrison, 2153, 2155, 2164 V. Long, 269 V. Saginaw Mining Co., 122, 123, 129, 130 V. Smith, 2262, 2263 V. Starr, 1893 Conroe v. Birdsall, 2343 Conroy v. Sullivan, 1449, 1504 Constable v. Bull, 1627 Constant v. Abell, 1315, 1316 Constantine v. Wake, 1109, 1122, 2262 Continental Nat. Bank v. Weems, 1762, 1763 Converse v. Blumrich, 2009 V. Citizens' Ins. Co., 1957 V. Ferre, 1892 Conway, Ex parte, 1794, i795 Conway 7/. Alexander, 2037, 2043, 2044, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055 V. Cutting, 1690 Conway v. Hale, 1658 V. Kinsworthy, 1665, 1690 V. Starkweather, 1130, 1134, 1136, 1318, 1353 V. Taylor's Exr., 1516 Conwell V. Clifford, 2025, 2059 V. Evill, 2045 V Kuykendall, 2772 V. McCowan, 2150 Conyers sv. Kenan, 2296 Cooch z/. Gen7, 1998 V. Goodman, 1925 Coogan V. Burling Mills, 2022, 2024 V. Parker, 1083, 1084, 1177, 1179, 2269 Cook V. Allen, 1974, 1977, 1983 V. Babcock, 2296, 2297 V. Bartholomew, 2031, 2032, 2141 V. Bisbee, 521 V. Brightley, 1071, igor V. Brown, 237, 2319 V. Champlain Transportation Company, 123, 553, 554. 1153. 1228 V. Cholmondeley, 563 V. Clinton, 1899 V. Colyer, 2047 z>. Cook, 541, 542, 545. 546, 547. 557. 727. 743, 1212, 1296 V. Cooper, 2085, 2100 V. Corthell, 2018 V. Creswell, 1337 7'. Dillon, 1779 V. Ellington, 1582, 1591, 1593, 1630 V. Famam, 890 V. Finkler, 2175 V. Fisk, 853 V. Fountain, 161 1, 1612 V. Hammond, 194 V. Holmes, 329, 342 V. Hull, 72, 2227 V. Johnson, 2258 V. Klink, 1523 V. McChristian, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1448, 1465, 1502, 1510 V. Newman, 1504 V. Norton, 1353 V. Parham, 2102 V. Parker, 1032 V. Patrick, 1639 V. Steams, 2212, 2213 V. Tullis, 1586, 1617, 1661 V. Walker, 317, 319, 785 V. Wardens of St. Paul's Church, 1853, 1855 V. Webb, T026, 1903 V. Whiting, 58 V. Winford, 967 z'. Wood, 1723 County V. Railroad Co. Cook's Exrs. v. Cook's Admrs., 855, 858 Cooke, Ex parte, 1761 Cooke V. Bremond, 1947 V. Clayworth, 1032, 1034 V. Crawford, 1817 V. Culbertson, 2045 z>. Husbands, 1373, 1562 V. Lamotte, 1790, 1801 z\ Loxley, 1214 V. Neilsun, 1254, 1327, 1328, 1343 V. Soltan, 1743 V. Turner. 267 Cookson V. Cookson, 1964 V. Richardson, 1620, 1760 4 Cooles V. Wooding, 1928 Cooley V. Dewey. 2281 V. Hobart, 2026 Coolidge V. Learned, 1913,2197, 2290, 2291,2292 V. Melvin, 2334 Coolingwood v. Pace, 2287 Coombe, Ex parte, 2003 Coombs V. Anderson, 465 V. Beaumont, 125 V. Jackson, 1023 CIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Coombs IP Jordan, 22, 47, 49, 51, 61, i44> 183, 485,1225, 2140 zi. Read, 1376 V. Young, 927 Coombe v. Clements, 93S Coomlerw. Hefner, 1304, 1316, 1327, 1328, 1331, 1334, 1546 Coon V. Bean, 1858 V Brickitt, 1154, 1861, 186S Cooney v. Cooney, 1503 V. Hayes, iiii V. Woodbuni, 1372 Coope V. Eyer, 1241, 1242 Cooper V. Adams, 62, 63, 479, 514, 1266, 1273, 1277, 1294, 1296, 1297 V. Barber, 2245 V, Bigley, 2024, 2153 V. Cedar Rapids, 1983 V. Cole, T050, 1236, 2067 V. Cooper, 440, 1024, 1398, 1404, 1405, 1580, 1689, 1919, 1934, 1942, 1951 V. Coursey, 411, 412 V. Davis, 688, 2062, 2080, 2187 V. Fields, 1251 V. First Presbyterian Church, 40 V. Foss, 206S V. Galbraith, 1758 V. Jackson, 2079 V. Johnson, 122, 123, 147 V. Kynock, 344, 1693, 1796 V. Lloyd, 774, S94 V. Martin, 2151, 2172 V. McClun, 1598, 1738 V. McDonald, 656, 679, 680. 684, 1372 V. McGrew, 1234 V. Newland, 2099, 2101, 2111 V. Presbyterian Church, 32 V. Rankin, 1042 V. Smith, 1213, 1216, 1217, 2226 V. Slower, 1256, 126S, 1272 V. Tabor, 890 ■V. Whitney, 788, 832, 1560, 2168 V. Williams, 2328 V. Wolf, 2018, 2019 V. Wyatt, 260, 272, 1113, 1677 V. Young, 1247 Coosa River Steamboat Co. v. Barclay, 1517, 1 5 18 Cootee V. Richardson, iiii Coots V. Lambert, 849 Coover's Appeal, 1964 Cope V. Cope, 2188. V. Marshall, 57 V. Wheeler, 2056, 2164, 2071 Copeland v. Barron, 352, 534, 1815 V. Copeland, 42, 816, 817, 2126 V. Sauls, 216, 217, 673, 1349 V. Stephens, 11 15 V. Stevens, 1114 V. Yoakum, 2039 Copely V. Riddle, 2305 Copis V. Middleton, 2137 Copp z'. Hersey, 802, 955 V, Norwich, 1583 Coppage V. Alexander s Heirs, 1851, 1858 Copper Mining Co. v. Beach, 1008 Coppiii V. Coppin, 368, 719, 2057, 2289 V. Gunner, 625 V. Pennyhough, 1778 Coray t. Eyre, 2036 Corbet's Case, 1559, 1564, 2194 Coibst V. Waterman, 5072 Corbett v, Corbett, 249, 252, 499 Corbin v. Cannom, 1914 7'. Dale, 2240 V. Healy, 287, 401, 402, 408, 410, 446, 449, ,450 V. Jackson, 1976 7>. Minchin, 1473, 1480 Corbitt V. Clenny, 1777 Cord 71. Hirsch, 2152 Cordes v. Miller, 1172, 1173 Core 7>. Faupel, 2296, 2297, 2298 Coreill w. Ham, 935 Corey v. Bisliop, 80 V. People, 834, 836 Corinth V. Emery, 1945 Corlass, /?/ re, 61S Corlies v, Corlies. 1721 Corliss V. McLagin, 103, 133, 138, 2067 Gorman v. Herritt, 2335 Cormerais v. Genella, 2159, 2167 V. Wesselhoeft, 1640 Cormick v. Taylor, 860 Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 646, 2012 Cornelius v. Ivins, 265, 266, 1849, 1851, 1972 V. Smith, 1589, 1590 Cornell v, t)ean, 1231 V. Hall, 2043, 2052, 2053 V. Hichens, 2014, 2016 V. Lamb, 194. 2253, 2273 V. Molton, 1005 V. Prescott, 2112, 2150, 2166 V. Vanartsdaien, 1202 Comellison v. Cornellison, 1334 Cornfoot v. Fowke, 1039, 11 10 Corning v. Gould, 1174, 2243, 2247 V. Murray, 2109 V. Troy Iron & Nail Works, 1145, 1222 V. Troy Nail Co., 224S Cornish v. Frees, 1427 V. Mew, 51S V. Stubbs, 1312 Cornwall v. Hoyt, 647 Doe d., V. Matthews, 1310 Corp V. Chandler, 287 Corpman v. Baccastow, 2038 Corporation of Hastings v. Ivall, 1351 Corriel v. Ham, 917, 955 Corrigan v. City of Chicago, 11 71 V. Trenton, 2257 V. Trenton Del. Tails Co., 1019 V. Woods, 1276 Corry v. Lamb, 949 Corse V. Leggett, 161 7 Cortleyou v. Hathaway, 2066 7). Van Brundt, 2201 Corven's Case, 121 Corwin v. Corwin, 2318 V. Cowan, 133 z/. Davison, 1914 Corwithe v. Griffing, 1985 Corxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, 452 Cory V. Eyre, 2124 Cost V. Rose, 1984 Costabadie v. Costabadie, 1740 Costar V. Clarke, 788, 827, 157S V. Lorillard, 761, 763, 788, 832, 1682, 1876, 1877 Coster V. Murray, 1781 Costigan v. Gould, 2355 Cotes V. The City of Davenport, 1261 zi. Woodson, 1032 Cottee V. Richardson, 1164 Gotten zK Willoughby, 2020 Cottenham, Succession of, 1481 Cotter 7K Bettner, 1241 7), Layer, 1840 Cotterell v. Long, 2036, 2037, 2046, 2052 Cottinger ?'. Fletcher, 1637 Cottingham, Succession of, 1481 Cottiiigton V. Fletcher, i6gi Cottman v. Grace, 1658 Cotton, Ex parte, 125, 133 Cotton V. McKee, 2039 V. Pocassett Mfg. Co., 2219 V. Wood, 1382 Cottrell's Appeal, 2177 Cottrell V. Adams, 2102, 2105 Couch V. Anderson, 292 V. Burke, 1280 7'. Stratton, 881, 918, 944, 951, 952 Coudert », Cohen, 1013 Coulson V. Whiting, 1054 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CV Coulter V. Holland, 853, 856 V. Robertson, 1553, 1710, 1711, 1727 Coults r'. Walker, 1579 Council V. Page, 1047 Countess of Shrewsbury's Case, 1228, 1297 County of Henry z*. Bradshaw, 2355 County of Shrewbury u. Earl of Slirewbury, 510 Couutz V. Markling, gio Coursey v. Davis, 324 Coursey Oil Co, zk Oilbreck & A R Co., loig Courthope ?'. Mapplesden, 577 Courtiass ?'. Vanlore, 7S0 Courtney v. Carr, 1999, 2076 w. Taylor, 1063 Courtots V, Carpenter, 2056 Cousins V. Allen, 2169 Coutant V. Servoss, 1S32, 2133 Coutts V. Acworth, 1793 Cove V. Cather, 744, 840 Covendale v. Aldricb, 1^25 Covender v. Culteel, 1962 Coventry v. Coventry, 963 Covert V. Hertzog, 888 Covey z/. Pittsburgh, F. \V. & C. R. Co., 98, 142 Covilland v. Tanner, igoo Cowan V. Iowa St. Ins. Co., 2115 V. Wheeler, 1610, 1616 Cowart V. Cowart, 108 Cowden*s Estate, 2179, 2180 Cowdry v. Cowdrey, 141 1 V. Day, 2051 Cowell V. Colorado Springs Co., 259, 26S V. Lammei-s, 230S V. Lumley, 10S3, 1084, 10S6, 1126, 1175, 1177 Cowen V. Alsop, 1623 Goweta Falls Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 1247 Cowgell V. Warrington, 1484, 1487 Cowie V. Goodwin, 1177, 1200, 2269 Cowing v. Howard, 1715 Cowl V. Vamum, 2007 Cowles V. Kendall, 2213 V. Kidder, 2227 Cowley V. Lumley, 2269 V. Shelby, 2135 Cowley's Heirs v. Chiles, 1213 Cowling V. Higginson, 2220 Cowman v. Hall, 761, 763, 788, 827, 831 V. Harrison, 1684 Cowper V. Cowper, 1692, 2287 •u. Fletcher, 1021 Cowton V. Wickersham, 2262 Cox v. Bent, 1264, 1275, izgg, J313, 1324, 1325 ■V. Cox, 771 V. Fonblanque, 501 V. Garst, 802 V. Grant, 163S V. Jagger, 718, 736, 739, 744, 838 V. Joiner, 2334 V. McBurney, 1956, 1963 V. Shropshire, 1481 V. Stafford, 1398 V. United States, 2057 z>. Vickers, 2149 V. Walker, 1595 •V. Wells, 901 7). Wheeler, 2137, 2150, 2178, 2179 V. Wilder, 792, 915, 1481 Doe d., V. Day, 1040 Coxall V. Sherrerd, 298 Coxe V. Blanden, 1756 v. Higbee, 841 7J. Higher. 844 Coy V. Coy, 1777 V. Downie, iioo Coyle V. Wilkins, 2175 Cozens v. Long, S83 V. Stevenson, 1079 Cozine v. Graham. 1592 Cozzens v. Jaslin, 2279 Crabb v. Pratt, 781 Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 49, 50, 51, 52 Craft V. Webster, 2105 V. Wilcox, igig, 1950, 1952 Crafts V. Aspinwall, 2154, 2179, 2180 V. Crafts, 826, 1921, 198S, 2029, 2172 Craig V. Craig, 1754, 1755 V. Firet Presbyterian Church, 33, 35, 36, 39 7'. Leslie, 218, 434, 673, 1560 V. Merime, 2255 z'. Parkis, 2099 T'. Pinson, 2320 V. Radford, 673 z>. Somers, 1048 V. Tappan, 2306 V. Taylor, 1876 z/. Watt, 485 V. Wells, 259, 266, 269 Craig's Heirs v. Walthall, 947, 964 Grain v. Cavaua, 773, 8g8, Sgg, g2o, 954, 956, 960 V. Fox, 2245 V. McGoon, 2127, 2128 V, Wright, 1824 Cram v. Burnham, 597, 752, 757, 759 Cramer v. Hoose, 1634, 1651 Crane %>. Bonnell, 2039, 2045, 2052, 2053 V. Brigham, 117, 146 T. Buchanan, 2045 V. Caldwell, 2006 V. Deming, 2027, 2029, 2030 V. Linneus, 1428, 1429 V. March, 2107, zio8 V. Marshall, 212 1'. Meginnis, 772, 2331 V. O'Conner, 971, 975, 978, 1017 z>. O'Reilley, 1290 V. Palmer, 777, 804, 814, 832, 2005 V. Reader, 2354 V. Reeder, 220,2014, 2347 z'. Turner, 2110, 2120 V. Waggoner, 1434, 1894 Cranson v. Cranson, 727, 794, 795, 912 Cranstone z>. Crane, 2 161 Cranz v. White, 1427, 1428 Crary v. Goodman, 984, 1917, 2298 Crashaw ?'. Maule, S25 V Sumner, 2237 Craske v. Christian Union Pub. Co., 996, 1264, 13 19, 1322 Crassen v. Swoveland, 2038 Craufurd v. Hunter, 1668 Craven z>. Brady, 271, 274, 501 V. Craven, 917, 947 z;. Winter, 722 Graver v. Wilson, 2060 Crawford's Appeal, 1739, 2313 Crawford zl Chapman, 1071 V. Crawford, 17S3 V. Edwards, 2072 V. Ellis, 2068 V. Forshaw, 1816 V. Hazelrigg, 2133 V. Jones, 2256 V. Kirksey, 1623, 1624, 1625 V. Lockwood, 1506 V. Longstreet, 1331, 13^3 V. Morris, 13 14 V. Scovell,2345 V. Taylor, 2094, 2174, 2175 V. Thompson, 270 V. Wheeler, 1083 V. Wick, 994 Crawley's Case, 1352, i553 Cray v. Willis, 1968 Craythorne v. Swinburne, 2137 Creager z*. Creager, 1383, 1443, 1607 Crecelius zk Hurst, 727, 826, 913 Creech v. Crockett, 1027, 1297 Creekmur v. Creekmur, 2296, 2297, 2298 Creel v. Kirkham, 1231, 1233 cvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Cregan 7/. Cullen, 11S5 Cregonin R. Co. v. Railway & Nav. Co., loig Creiger, Matter of, 675, 6S6, 692, 703, 762, 777, 7qS Creiger v. Braun, 1327 Creigh v. Henson, 1782 Creightou 7/. McKee, 10S8 V. Pringle, 1553 V. Sanders, 1327, 1329, 1339, 1340 Crenshaw v. Tliackston, 2150, 2072 Cresiiiger v. Welch, gS6 Cressman's Appeal, 1665, i6go, 1790 Cresson v. Stout, 104, 105, 108, no, 126 Crest T/. Jack, iSgi, 1892 Crevelingw. Fritts, 1578 V. West End Iron Co., 1151 Crewe v. Dicken, 1778, 1818 Crews V. pi^ndleion, 46, 47 V. Threadgill, 2047, 2054 Cribb V. Rogers, 282 Crickmere 7/. Patterson, 1S47, 1848, 1856 Cridland's Estate, 500, 1673 Criley v. Chamberlain, 414 Crim z'. Nelms, 1212 Crine V. Tif ts, 49 Crippen V. Baums, 2331 V. Morrison, 146, 2063 V. Morse, 1923 Cripps V. Jee, 2049 V. Wolcott, 316 Crisfield v. Storr, 1927 Crisp V. Martin, 29 V. Miller, 2018 Doe d., V. Barber, 1352 Critchfield v. Ramaley, 1315, 1318, 1333, 1335, 1337 Crittenden v. Johnson, 764, 803,827,831,887, 927 V. Woodruff, 734, 764, 838, 888, 889, 927 Crittenton -v. Alger, 2226 Croade v, Ingraham, 734, 838, 984, 2262 Croan tj. Joyce, 1935, 1940, 1950 Croclieron v. Jaques, 1599 Crocker v. Carson, 1S84, r8g7 V. Crocker, 1642, 1645, i74S< 174*^1 '^7^'i> 1765 V. Fox, 847, 861, 873, 885 V. Higgins, 1600 V. Jewell, 2IOI V. Tiffany, 1924 Crockett v. Crockett, 534, 544, 555, 566, 740, 776, S87 Crockford v. Alexander, 577 Croft T. Biinster, 2033, 2100, 2107, 2108 V Lumley, 1056, 1057, J105 ti. Slee, 4S6 V. Wilbar, 1364 Doe d., V. Tidbury, 1215, 1306 Croghan, Estate of, 1520, 1521 Cromie v. Hoover, 141, 145, 1224 V. Louisville, etc., Soc, 1659 V. Ti-ustecs Wabash & Erie Canal Co., 73 Crommelin v. Thiess, 994, 1104, mi, 1112, iri8, 1123, 1133, 1168, 1254, 1255, 1283, 1295, 1297, i3iS>!i3i6j 1317, i3'8 Crompe v. Barrow, 1838 Crompton 7'. Oxenden, 1164 Cromwell's Case, 2340, 2349 Cromwell V. Bank of Pittsburgh, 2161 V. Brooklyn. 211Q V. Brooklyn F. Ins. Co., 21 18 V. Delany, 450 V. Tate, 2-i,(->T, •V. Wiichesier, 284, 285 Cronin v. HaSwUine, 2101 Cronklute 71. Cronklute, 2240 Crook V. Crooking, i6gi V. Glenn, 2175 7/. Ingoldsby, 1786 V. Watts, 2287 Crooke v. County of Kings, 1798, 1808, 1809 Crooke v. De Vandes, 322 V. Frazier, 2083 V. O'Higgins, 2149, 2150, 2151 Crocker v. Jewell, 2103, 2147 Crookes v. Wliitworth, 1878, 1884, 1974 Croom V. Herring, 76 V. Talbot, 2250 Crop V. Morton, 491 V. Newton, 1700 V. Norton, 1587, i6go Cropsey v. Ogden, 753, 754 Crosby 7-. Allyn, igii 7'. Berger, 2056 V. Dodds, 310 7'. Farmers' Bank of Andrew Co., 1946 V. Hanover, 197 V. Harlow, 1295 V. Leavitt, 2085, 2128 V. Loop, 2250, 2251, 2256, Z258, 2268 7'. Wadsworth, 53, 54 Croskey v. Chapman, 1777 Cross, Re, 1037, 1450, 1467, 1488 Cross's Appeal, 1645 Cross 7', De Valle, 215, 216 v. Carson, 1849, 1861, 1873 V. Carter, 1866 V. Everts, 1450, 1462, 1474, 1485 V. Hudson, 1844 V. Marston, 135, 139 V. Robinson, 1915, 1993, 2128 V. Tome, 2250, 2253 V. Upson, 1119, 1281 Crossley 7j. Lightowler, 220S, 2228, 2245 Crossling v. Crossling, 1840 Crpssman v. Field, 2, 305, 308, 335 Croswell V. Crane, 1013 Crotty V. Collins, 47 Crouch 7/. Briles, 2270 V. Fowle, 1054 V. Puryear, 494, 495, 552, 553, 867, 742, Sir, 812 7/. Shepherd, 2241 V. Tregonning, 2265 7/. Wabash, 11 56 Crouse v. Derbyshire, 1234 V. Holman, g86 Crow V. Brown, 1427, 1428, 1429 V. Knightingler, 1165 V. Mark, igo5, igo6 V. Vance, 2007, 2104, 2106 Crowder v. Shackelford, 1021 Crowe V. Wilson, g74 Crowell V. Hospital of St. Barnabas, 2072 V. Woodbury, igSS Crowey, /k re, 1379 Crowher v. Rowlandson, 1032 Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 57, igg Crowie 7'. Hoover, 1188 Crowther v. Crowther, 1785 Croxall V. Sherrerd, 401, 402, 447, 453, 454, , 459, 470, 473» 155S, 1559/ 173^ Crozier s Appeal, 941 Cruger t/. Douglas, 1798 V, Halliday, 1599, 1660, 1661, 1778, 1787 z>. Haywood, 310 71. McLaury, 1139, 1862,2258 V. McLawry, 2268 Cruikshank v. Duffin, 2159 Crum 71. Moore, 1713 Crumb v. Davis, 832 ' V. Sawyer, 910 Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 1623 Crumley v. Deake, 687, 6go Crummen v. Bennett, 1481 Crump V. Norwood, 815 7/. Redd, 1633 Crutchfield v. Coke, 2165 Cruwys 71. Colman, 1629 Cubberly v. Yager, 2166 Cubbins v. Ayers, 130 Cubitt V. Porter, 1904, 2235, 2236 Cudleigh's Case, 1525, 1528 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cvu Cudlip V. Randall, 1261 Cuddworth v. Scott, 2020 Cueman v. Broadnax, 298. 155S Curfee V. Milk, 415, 423, 466 Culbevtsoii's Appeal, 1605, 1753 Culbertson v. Duly, 30S V. Luckey, 1626 CuUen V. Sprigg, 1863, 1S64 Culley V. Doe d. Taylersoii, 607 Culling w. Tuffnail, 124, 127 CuUom V. Erwiii, 2106 Cullough V. Norwood, g2o CuUum V. Branch Bank at Mobile, 2136 CuUwick V, Swindell, 133 Culow V. Rhodes, i8gS Culver V. Harper, 800 •u. Rhodes, 1S99, ^Q^Si »9i6. 1917,2296 Cumber ». Oilman, 2086 Cumberland v. Codrington, 1672, 21S1 V. Washington County Court 671 Cumberland C. & I. Co. v. Sherman, 1768 Cumming ?'. Camming. 2155, 21S0 V. Williamson, 1832 Cummi:igs v. Barrett, 68, 71, 73 V. Freer, 2331 V. Long, 1504, 1505 z*. McCullough, 1624 V. Mills, 1241 V. Powell, 2344 V. Shaw, 3/7, 31S i>. Show, 536 V. Wyman, 2295 Cunnea v. Williams, 2273 Cunningham z/. Ashley, 2107 V. Bell, 1646 V. Bloodgood, 1509 V. Cambridge Savings Bank, 128S V. Cunningham, 184, 657, 757, 759, 772 V. Freeborn, 1794 V. Gray, 1376 V. Hawkins, 2095 V. Horton, 1253, 1266, 1274, 1279, 1353 V. Knight, 766, goS ■V. McKi.idley, 1781 V. Moody, 61 1 V. Pattee, looS, 1026, 1087, 1088 V. Shannon, 916, 934, 956, 965 (7unynghame v. Tliurlow, 1844 Cure V. Crawford, 1314 Curell V. Miss., M. &. F. Ins. Co. 2115 Curl V. Lowell, 1274, i2g5, i2g6, 1356 Curlin v. Hendricks, 1697 Currant v. Jags, 1647 Curren v. Finn, 774 Currie V. White, 1665, 1690 Currier z/. Barker, 1013, 1274, 1335, 1338, 1341 z/. Earl, 1 144, 1269, 1271, 1274, 1284, 1285, 1293, 1295, 1Z97 V. Gale, 2085, 2ogi, 2128, 22g2, V, Jordan, 1274, 1281 7'. Parley, 1254, 1257, 1270, 1273, 1274, i27g, 1300, 1305, 1307, 1337, 1342 V. Sutherland, 1382, 1481 Currin %>. P'inn, 221 Curry v. Bott, 635, 659, 1362 V. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 2 113, 2 115, 2117 V. Curry, 898, 899, 958 V. Lyles, 2348, 2349 Curtinf'. Patton, 2344 Curtis V. Board of Education, 1864 V. Brownell. 2345 V. Buckley, 2002 V. Deering, 1094 V. Des Jardins, 1464 V. Fox. 681 V. Francis, 2244 V. Galpin, 2212 V. Galvin, 1252, 1266, 1293, 1294, 1296, 1354 V. Gardner, 283, 285, 290, 1710 V. Gooding, 2151 Curtis?/. Goodnow, 2142 V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 1195 V. Grost, 62 V. Hall, 1033 V. Hewin, 2279 V. Hitchcock, 2152 V. Hobart, S35, 851, 852, S61, 920, 1376 V. Hoyt, 63, 1252, 2206 V. Hunton, 2289 V. Hutton, 368, 369, 2057, 2058, 2289 V. Keesler, 1913 V. King, 1S97 7'. Leavitt, 671 V. Le Grande Hydraulic Water Co., 2243 V. Longstreth, 414, 415, 447, 472 7). Lyman, 2iig I'. Mason, 1733 V. Miller, iisg, 1161, 1164 z<. O'Brien, 1050, 1506 V. Pierce, 1102 V. Price, 300, 344, 1606, 1797 V. Riddle, 139, 142 V, Kippon, 347, 1632 V. Root, 1491, 1497, 2015 V. Swearingen, 1921 V. Wheeler, 1306 Cusack v. While, 2346 Gushing v. Adams, 1252 V. Ayer, 2180 V. Blake, 611, 654, 655, 669, 677, 678, 679, 680, 682, 683, 1548, 1574, 1576, 1584, 1609, 1692, 1694 V. Hurd, 20S3 Cushman v. Bailey, 1241 V. Luther, 2031 V. Smith, 5, 2327 Cusic V. Douglass, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510 Cuson V. Bla2er, 6g Cuthbert %>. Chauvet, 1797 1'. Kuhn, 1117, 1170, 2253, 226S, 2269 V. Lawton, 2226 Cutler V. Currier, 1894 V. Dickinson, 2043 V. Lincoln, 2014 V. Pope, 51,54, 55 V. Tuttle, 1634, 1636, 1653 V. Winsor, 1240 V. Wright, 920 Cutter V. Davenport, 367, 720, 2057, 2058, 2288 V. Doughty, 1637 Cutting V. Cutting, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1820, 1825 Cutts V. York. Mfg. Co., 2015, 2016, 2071 Cuylere/. Bradt, i6gi z'. Ensworth, 2177 Cyr V. Madore, 2243 D. Dabney v. Bailey, 938, 948 V. Manning, 1605 Dacre v. Gorges, 845 Dade v. Irwin, i66g Dadmun v. Lamson, 2og2, 2101, 2102 Daggett V. Rankin, 2001, 2038, 2087, 2125 Doe d., V. Snowden, 1308 Dahm v. Barlow, 12 12 Daidge v. Bowers, 1301, 1325 Dailey v. Grimes, 2257, 2273 V. Moor, 2339 Daily v. Abbott, 2087 Dairs v. The State Bank, 2332 Dakin %>. Allen, 1290 V. Cope, 1 138 Dakins v. Berisford, 1372 Dald V. Geiger, 1024 Dale V. Hamilton, 787, 1644 %i. McEvers, 2089, 2090, 2138 V. Robinson, 2013 V. Thurlow, 2364 CVUl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Dall r;. Confidence Silver Mining Co., 8g iJ'Almaine v. Moseley, 307 Tlalrymple v. Dalrymple, 594, 595, 751, 753 Dalton V. Angus, 66, 2233 V. Dalton, 546, 547 V. Landahn, 2270 Daly V. Burchell, 2150 Dalzell V. Lynch, 1225 Damainville v. Man, ito8, 1116,2269 Damb v. Hoffman, 2263, 2264 Dame v. Dame, 63, 116, 123, 1254, 1278, 1295, 1296 Damon v. Damon, 597 V. Granby, 2360 Damrell v. Hartt, 1815 Dana v. Binney, 2133 V. Coombs, 201 1 V. Farrington, 1755 V, Jackson, 1977, 1986 V. Petersliam. 974 V. Valentine, 2239, 2245 Dand v. Kingscote, 90, 93 Dane v. Kirkwall, 987, 1034 Danforth v. Beattue, 1425, 1481 V. Lowry, 1576 V. Sargeant, 13 10 V. Smith, 806, S65 V. Talbot, 315 Daniel v. Coker, 2087 V. Day, 1723 V. Grace, 2254 V. Leitch, 784, 940 V. Thompson, 419, 469 V. Wood, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 83 Daniels v. Alvord, 2035 V. Bailey, 54 V. Bowe, 132 v. Brown, 1234 V. Daniels, igoi V. Davison, 999, 1296 V. Eisenbord, Z031, 2032 V. Flower Brook Mfg. Co., 2127 V. Newton, 1173 V. Pond, 78, 79, 103, J06, 566, 567, 1153, 11S4, 1277, 1297 V. Richardson, 1024, 1074, 1077 Danks t'. Quackenbush, 1510, 1511, 1518 Dann v. Spurrier, 1007, ioo3 Dansey zk Griffith, 322 .Dansville, Town of, v. Pace, 671 Danvers v. Dorrity, 1979 D'Aquin v. Armant, 2262 Darby V. Callaghan, 976, 2313 z'. Darby, 1961, 1980 V. Dixon, 1419 V. Mayer, 2057, 2058, 2289 Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 367, 368, 720 Darcy v. Askwith, 565 V. Askworth, 563 D'Arcy v. Blake, 798, 819, 1576 Darden v. Cowper, igo8 Dark v. Johnson, 84, 2211, 2212, 2213 Darke v. Martyn, 1720 Darke, Doe d., v. Bowditch, 1150 Darling v. Chapman, 2131 V. Kelly, 1230 V. Pulteney, 1806, 1831, 1840 V. Rogers, 1682 Darlington's Appropriation, 641, 1978 Darlington v. Bond, 1140, 1146 V, Ulph, 1 152 Darrill v. Stephens, 1317 Darrow v. Kelly, 2126 Darst V. Roth, 1805 Dart V. Barbour, 2331 V. Dart, 405, 414, 2301, 2323 zi. Hercules, 123 Dartmouth College v. Clough, 1107, 1124, 2257 V. Woodward, 235, 2324 Darvill v. Roper, 83 Dash 7/. Vonkleek, 671 Dashiell v. Attorney-General, 1637 Dashiel v Collier. 841, 844 Dater v. Bank of United States, 2342 Daub V. Englebach, 206S Daubenspeck v. Piatt, 2054 Dauchy v. Bennett, 2137, 2170 Dand v. Kingscote, 223S Daugliaday v. Paine, 2006 Daiigherty v. Daugherty, 945 V. Deardorf, 215 1 V. Matthews, 1143 Davall V. New River Co., 42 Davenish, Doe d., v. Moffatt, 13 10 Davenkill n. Fletcher, 937 Davenport v Buckman, iigg V. Coltman, 309, 1638 V. Farrar, 2306 V. Ferrar, 767, 781, 831 V. Haynie, 2256 V. Lawson, 2220 V. Reg, 1138 V. Tyrrell, 2299, 2301 V. Young, 2332 Davey z>. Durant, 2160 David V. Beelman, 2268 V. Ryan, 1105 Davidson v. Allen, 2005 V. Chalmers, 499 V. Cooper, 2239 V. Cowan, 21 19, 2126 V. Coxe, 1999 V. Ernest, 1289 V. Ellmaker, 1214 V. Foley, 1637 V. Graves, 915 V. Isham, 198 V. Jones, 2349 V. Lawrence, 2175 V. Little, 1697 V. New Orleans, 2324 V. Sillman, 2302 V. Thompson, 1S94 V. Westchester Gas Light Co., 132 v. Whittlesey, 733, 734, 741, 838 Davie z*. Briggs, 523 Davies, Ex parte, 321 Davies v. Cannop, 1205 V. Connop, 1207 V. Mayor of New York, 1029 V. Moreton, 1157, 1158 V. Otty, 1590 V. Ridge, 1669 V. Speed, 1568 V. Warner, 370 Davies, Doe d., v. Davies, 486, 1594, 1597 V. Gatacre, 461 V. Thomas, 1334, 177S Daviess v. Meyers, 490, 511 Davila v. Davila, 954 Davis V. Alden, 1152, 1227 V. Anderson, 1999, 2078 V. Andrews, 1451 ZI. Angel, 270 z>. Ball, 1698 V. Barrett, 2098 V. Bartholomew, 7S5, 900, 909 V. Bawcum, 305 V. Bean, 1094, 2089, 2090 V. Bechstein, 2108, 2109 V. Benton, 2305 V. Bowmar, 2296 V. Brandon, 501 V. Brocklebank, 1251, 1269, 1271 V. Brown, 724 V. Buffum, 115, 128, 135, 145, 1204 V. Burrell, 1357 V. Central Vt. R. Co., 199 V. Christian, 786, 825, 1749 V. Cincinnati, 976 V. Clark, 1919, 1931, 1932, 1944, 1952 V. Coburn, 1781 V. Collier, 2272 V. Connop, 538 Keferences are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CIS Davis z'. Cook, 2135 V. Cristian, 1957, 1961, 1965 V. Darron, 764 t'. Darrow, 712, Soo, 870 •V. Davis, 596, 707, 794, 795, 8g6, 914,946, 1402, ig'S, 2302 V. Demming, 2168 •V. Dendy, 2090 V. Dudley, 201 1 V. Easley, 62, 545 V. Elkins, 202 V. Eyton, 539, 11 13, 1206 V. Garret, 1579 V. Getchell, 222S, 2229 V. Gilliam, 555, 1370 V, Givens, 1882 1}. Gray, 1089 V. Hayden, 402, 403, 411, 438, 449 V. Henson, 1403, 1503 V. Hulett, 2166 V. Hunt, 8S9 V. Jones, 145 V. Kelly, 1456, 1460, 1465, 1466 V. King, 1990 V. Lassiter, 2087 V. Lennen, 1986 V. Logan, 763, 824 V. Loundes, 265 x>. McDonald, 801, 896, 908, 909 V. McFarlane, 51 V. Mailey, 34S V. Mason, 208, 598, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 611, 613, 679, 680, 689, 695 V. Maynard, 2133 V. Miller, 334 %'. Morris, 1107, 1122, 1124 V. Moss, 115, 145, 146, 115s, 1158 V. Murray. 889,. 1773 V. Murphy, 1027, 1273 v. Newton, 1376 z'. New York Concert Co., 2140 V. Ney, 1594 V. O'Ferrall, 721, 831, 1376 V. Peabody, 1492 V. Perley, 2303 V. Pierce, 810, 1580, 2097 V. Richardson, 351 V. Rock Creek, L. F. & M, Co., 1620 V. Rowe, 20 V. Scott, 2307 V. Sear, 2208 z>. Simpson, 1707, 1777 7'. Skinner, 1894, 1922 V. Smith, 1 126, 1175 %'. Speed, 2319 V. Stark, 1158 V. Stinson, 355, 366 V. Stonestreet, 2037, 2043, 2044, 2050, 2053, 2054 V. Taylor, 1009 V. Thompson, 993, 1264, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1274, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296 V. Tingle, 714 V. Walker, 868 V. Warner, 372 V. Watts, 2261 V. Wetherell, 728, 729, 731, 879, 1493, 1494, 1646, 2074, 2173 v. Whittlesey, 735 V. Williams, 1797 V. Winn, 2089, 2136, 2138 v, Winslow, 2225 V. Wood, 1405 Davis, Doe d., v. Evans, 1309 Davison's Appeal, 712 Davison v. Davison, 949 V. Johonnot, 2329 Davol V. Rowland, 772, 920 Davoue v. Fanning, 1708, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1775' 2163 Davy zi. Pepys, 278 Daw 1'. Newborough, 1583 Dawley v. Ayers, 1395, 1462 Dawson, In re, 109 V. Kank of Whitehaven, 885 V. Bell, 943 V. Clark, 1638 V. Daniel, 78 V, Dawson, 515 V. Drake, 2085 V. Godfrey, 216, 236 T'. Hall, 2354 V. Hayden, 1449, 1467. 1777 7'. Holt, 1408, 1472, i486 V. Mills, rgor 7'. Oliver Massey, 270 V. Shaver, 706 7'. Small, 1687 T'. Thurston, 2365 Day z'. Adams, 2354 V. Allender, 2206 V. Cochran, 600, 603, 604, 607, 608, 612, 620, 621, 634, 635, 636, 637 v. Daveron, 307 V. Davis, 1897 V. Day, 2331 V. Howard, igoo T. Micou, 278,-2142 V. N. Y. C. R. Co., 2240 V. Patterson, 2151, 2153 V. Solomon, 767, 804 V. Swackhamer, 2264 V. Watson, 1128, 1174 V. West, 920 Dayrell t. Hoare, 1039 Dayton 7'. Dayton, 2148 V. Doozer, 1138 V. Newman, 2353 V. Rice, 2079 7/. Vandoozer, T150 Deadrick v. Armour, 1815 V. Cantrell, 1608, 1631, 1633, 1635 De Agreda v. Mantel, 2167 Deaminville v. Mann, 1072 Dean 7'. AUalley, 130 V. Central Pass Co., 2333 v. Comstock, 1289 V. Dean, 1589, 1612, 1646 V. Feeley, 1349 V. McCarthy, 199 V. Mitchell, 788, 827 V. Nelson, 2176 V. Nunnallv, 338, 339 V. O'Meara, 1988 v. Parker, 1950 V. Phillips, 818 v. Richmond, 663, 664, 773, 920 V. Roesler, 1052, 1245 V. Walker, 206S, 2o6cj. 2071, 2072 Dean's Heirs v. Mitchell's Heirs. 76a, 7^1 Dean of Rochester v. Pierce, 1332 Dean of Windsor's Case, 1074, 1075 Deane v. Aveling, 594 V. Caldwell, 1069, 1173 V. Hutchinson, 123, 129 Dearborn v. Dearborn, 2032, 2079 V. Eastman, 2343 V. Taylor, 926, 2103 Dearbome v. Taylor, 2178 D'Arcy 7/. Blake, 781 Dearden v. Evans, 61 Deare v. Carr, 2158 Dearing v. Thomas, 1395, 1398, 1460, 1503 V. Watkins, 2126 Dearman v. Dearman, 1481 Dearmas v. Mayor, etc., of New Orleans, 18, Dearmond v. Dearmond, 727, 794, 912 Deas 7*. Horrey, 383 Deaver v. Rice, 976, 1230, 123 1, 1238 De Pall V, Thompson, 1043 De Barante v. Gott, 2 18, 645, 959 De Baun v. Bean, 71 De Bell v. Thomson, 999 ex TABLE OF CASES. References are to pagiis. Diboe w. Lowcn, 415, 469, 538 ]>.ibolle V. Pennsylvania Insurance Co., 2362 Djbow V. Colfax, 48, 539, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1267 l)i Castro V. Barry, iqSo De Caters v. Le Ray De Chaumont, 1770 iJjch's Appeal, i8gi, 1893 D-'cker z/. Adams, 1131, 1271 I V. Boice, 1047, Z109 , V, Livingston, 1359, 13(10, 1363, 1364, 1367, 1368. 1369, -1901 V. McManus, 1274 Declonet v. Eorel, 2240 I >e Cordova v. Hood, 2006, 2008 I )c Cosier V. Villa, 661 Decouch V, Savitier, 646, 753, 1781 ]Jecoursey v. Guarantee Co., 2274 l)edmu:i z*. Lawson, 2091 Dee V. Dowall, 2300 Deere v. Chapman, 1393, 1414, 1415, 1424, 1483 Deerfield v. Arms, 2294 T'earhurst v. St. Alnams, 1693 Deering &. Adams, 335, 1594, 1597, 1605, 1796 V. Beard, 1456, 1465 \ V. Boyle, 1513, 2012 Deffelry v. Pico, 1502, 1519 Deford v. Mercer 2331 De Forest v. Bacon, 1794 V. Byrne, 1076, 11S5 De France v. De France, 2053, 2054 V. Johnson, 751, 770 Deg V. Deg, 1623, 1691 De Gendre v. Kent, 43 De Geofroy v. Riggs, 218 De Godey v. De Godey, 712 Degraffenreid 'u. Scruggs, ro6, 132, 135, 136 De Grey v. Richardson, 362, 606, 607, 608, 692, 693. 703 De Hart w. Dean, 656, 678, 1372 V. United States, 2212, 2213 De Haven z/. Landell, 2146, 2156 De Herques v. Marti, 2302 De Hymel v. Scottish- American Mortgage Co., 1476, 1467, 1490 Deibert's Appeal, 299, 1606 Deibler v. Barwick, 2004 Deisher v. Stein, gg6 Dejarnette v. Allen, 477, 479, 491, 552, 626, 635, 1364, 1370 Delahay v. Clement, 1997, 2077 V. McConnell, 2037 Delahoussaye v. Judice, 2226 De La Howe v. Harper, 1512, 1513 Delaire v. Keeman, 2001, 2043 j'^ De Lancey z*. Ganong, 1142, 1144, 1145, 1146^ 1 148, 1 151 V. Steams, 2109 Delaney, Estate of, 1378, 1445 V. Fox, 12 14 V. McCormack, 1807, 1808, i8og V. Rochereau, 1195 V. Root, 51, 55, 56, 1231, 1233 Delano v. Blake, 1031 V. Montague, 1013, 1348, 1353 V Wilde, 2083 D^laplaine v. Lewis, 2150 Dilashman v. Berry, 994 Dilassus V. Poston, 2005 V. United States, 3 Da Laureal v. Kempner, 2107 De Laurencel z*. De Boom, 1589, 1592 Delaven v. Pratt, 1496 Delaware & N. C. Co, -v. Bonnell, Sjo Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Lee, ig8 Delay v. Vinal, 948 De Leon v. Higuera, 2001, 2024, 2036, 2051 Dell V. Gardner, 2270 Dellettzj. Whitmere, 514 Dellinger's Appeal, 1594 Dellingerz/. Tweed, 1504 Delmas v. Merchants* Mutual Ins. Co., 1515 Delmerge v. Mullins, 1219 Delmonico v. GuiUaume, 787, 1961, 1963 Deloney v. Hutchinson, 18S5, ig6i De Longz/. Mulcher, 2297 De Mandeville z/. Crompton, 794 Demarest v. Hardham, 198 71. Koch, 1955 V. Willard, 1074, 1075, 1077, 2064, 2251, 2252 7'. Wynkoop, 2085, 2095, 2104, 2175, 2176 Demby v. Parsene, 1186 Demers v. Bullett, 23G3 Demi v. Bossier, 1208, 1209 De Mill V. Lockwood, 450 Deming v. Bullitt, 501 V. Colt, 1963 V. Deming, 66r V. Williams, 647 De Mott V, Benson, 2028, 2030 V. Hagerman, 1229, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1906 V. McMullen, 2012 Dempsey v. Kipp, 1306 V. Tylee, 646 Dempster, v. West, 2H7 Den V. Adams, 13 19 V. Bernard, 969, T004 V. Blair. 1136, 1140, 1335 V. Crawford, 534, 154S 7'. Dimon, 2063, 2132 i>. Drake, 1134, 1136, 1254, 1271, 1280, 1390, i29g, 1319, 1337 v. Dodd, 835 V. Emans. 403 V. Fearnside, 1040 V. Fogg, 405, 411, 413 V. Fox, 401, 402, 447 V. Gardner, 1920 V. Green, 1292 •V. Hanks, 1549, 2314, 2318 V. Hugg, 403, 405, 415 7'. Johnson, 9S0 z'. Kinney, 544 V. Laquear. 403 V. Lloyd, 1146, 1271 zi. Mackey, 1271, 1299, 1319 V. McPeake, 408 7'. Moore, 415 V. Mulford, 22gi, 22g9 V. Payne, 2 V. Post, 1057, 1107, nil, 1123 V. Quinby, 1364, 1367 z/. Robinson, 445, 463 V. Schenck, 401 V. Sinnickon, 2295 7'. Snowhill, 1334, 1336 V. Stockton, 2077, 2084 V. Troutman, 1703 V. Wade, 1271, 1350, 1354 V. Westbrook, 1291 V. Winans, 12S5 Den d. Doremus z/. Zabriskie, 470 Den d. Hankinson v. Blair, 1307, 1309 Den d. Humphries v. Humphries, 1303 Den d. Irwin v. Cox, 1308 Den d, Jacocks v. Gilliam, 464 Den d. McEowen v. Drake, 1307 Den d. Pollock v. Kittrell, 1257 Den d Snowhill v. Snowhill, 1307 Den ex d. Bockouverw. Post, 1104 Den ex d. Crane v, Fogg, 415, 423 Den ex d. Davidson v. Frew, 927 Den ex d. Decker v. Adams, 1132, 1135, 1310, _ 1333. 1346, 135^ Den ex d. De Peyster v. Howland, 1929 Den ex d. Ewan v. Cox. 412, 415. 423, 427 Den ex d. Freemen v. Heath, 1160 Den ex d. Grandy v. Bailey, ii6g, 1170 Den ex d. Hardenbergh v. Hardenbergh, 1024, 1876, 1881, igig, 1920, 1930, 193 1, 1033- 1938. i93<5. 1940. 1942, 1950 Den ex d, Harker v. Gustin, 1217 Den ex d. Hinchman v. Clark, 415, 444 Den ex d. Hopper v. Demarest, 598, 603, 604, 614 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CSl Den ex d. Howell -v. Ashmore, 1220 1'. Howell, I2Q3 Den ex d. Hughes z*. Shaw, 914 Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 401, 448, 450, 470 Den ex d. Love v. Edmondstou, 12S2, 12S7, 1309 Pen ex d. Lyerly v. Wlieeler, 1751 Den ex d. Miller v. Miller, 852, 859 Den ex d. Needham v. Bronson, 1941, 1942 Den ex d. Player v. Nicholls, 973, 980 Den ex d. Roberts v. Forsythe, 2S6, 531 Den ex d. Somers v. Peirson, 412, 415 Den ex d. Spachius z>. Spachius, 450, 470 Den ex d. Stamps v. Irwme, 123 1 Den ex d. Stedman z'. Mcintosh, 1256 Den ex d. Stewart v. Johnson, 915 Den ex d. Williams 7'. Rennet, 873 Den ex d. Williamson v. Snowhill, 1319 Den ex d. Wilson v. Small, 411, 415, 426, 42S Den ex d. Wyckoff, 1929, 1930, 1933, 1944 Den, Lessee, v. Webster, 1294 Denegre 7/. Haun, 1495, 1512, 1524 Denent v. Williams, 1978 Dengenbart v. Craciaft, 908 Denham n. Cornell, 94 v. Holeman. 2299 De Nicholls z'. Saunders, 2065 Denike v. New York & Rosendale Lime Co., 1019 Denison -v. Denison, 595 V. Ford, 1 166 Denman v. Prince, 2237 Denn v. Cartwright, 1314 V. Gaines, 533 V. Gnskin, 302, 320, 331 V. Gillot, 441, 442 V. Shenton, 322 Denn d. Bolton v. Bowne, 310 Denn d. Jackling v. Cartwright. 1334 Denn ex d. Moor v. Meller, 344 Denne t*. Judge, 1967 Dennett v. Croker, 212 V. Dennett, 237, 401, 545, 666, 682, 1034, 2319 V, Hopkinson, 45 V. Penobscot Fair Ground Co., 1276, 1292, 2261 Denning v. Smith, 2335 V, Van Deusen, 536 Dennis v. Dennis, 752, 760 V. McCagg, 154s V. Twitchell, 11 19 V. Warder, 1290 V. Wilson, 283, 285, 2218, 2361 Dennison v. Ely, 2042 V. Goehring, 1069, 1738 V. Grove, 1045 V. Reade. 1138, 1150 Dennistoun ?', Walton, 1213 Denny v. Cabot, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244 V. McCabe, 517, 651, 668, 669, 670, 701 V. Palmer, 1756 V. White, 1396, 1506 Denson v. Mitchell, 317, 3191 486, 536, S03, i'ii4 Dent 7'. Emmeger, 2192 z/. Slough, 1376 Denton z>. Cole, 2107 V. Donner, 1621 z'. Jackson, 41 V. Ledell, 22.12 V. Livingston, 43, 817 V. McKenzie, 1639, 1650 z/. Nanny, 511, 748, 757, 783, 800, 818, 2169, 2170, 2173 V. Strickland, 1237 Dentzel ?'. Waldie, 901, 911 Denzel v. Waldie, 2323 Dcnys V. Suckburg, igo6 Depas 7-/. Mayo, 720 Dcpew V. Dewey, 2175 De'PereCo. v. Reynen, 1317, 2270 Dc Peyster v. Clendinning, 1555 De Peyster v. Ferrers, 1885 V. Michael, 48, 245, 249, 250, 251,252,256, 2159, 261, 266, 1858, 1859, 1861 De Puy ». Strong, 1901, 1909 Deraismes v. Deraismes, 504 Derbes v Romero, 2365 Derby v. Taylor, 11 12 z'. Weyrich, 1480 Derby Bank v. Landon,2i44 Dering v. Farrington, 1989 Derm v. Gillot, 291 Dermott v. Jones, 1099 Derry %>. Deiry, 1622, 1652, 1760 Derush "v. Brown, 761, 763, 788, S32 De Rutte v. Muldrow, 259, 1039 De Rutzen, Doe d., v Lewis, 1148 De Ruyter v. St. Peter's Church, 2342 Dervinz'. Jennings. 2048 De Saussure %'. Lyons, i'^42 Descarlett v. Dennett, 1871, 1872 Deshler v. Buiy, 923,024 Desilver, Matter f,f, 986 Deskowitz v. Davis, 1646 Desloge v. Peace, 2212, 2213 V. Pearce, 995, 1280, 12S3, 2212 V. Pierce, 2212 Despard v. Churchill, 21, 974 V. Walbridge. 1133, 1149. 2050 Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 105, 113, 115. 131. ^-^s. 1041 Detroit Savings Bank v. Bellamy, 1334, 1335, 1340 De Uprey v. De Uprey, 1983 Devacht, Lessee of, v. Newsam, 1220 De Vandal v. Malone, 21 19 Devaughn v. Devaughn, 836, 850 Devaynes z'. Robinson, 1832 Devecmon v. Devecmon, 974, 975 Devenpeck z/. Lambert, 2206 De Verne, In re, 6S2 Deville v. Wildoe, 1500 Devin z'. Himer, 2340 De Visme. In re, 1647 Devoy v. Devoy, 1648 Dewey v. Brownell, 2086 V. Dewey, 1964 V. Dupuy, 2264 V. Goodenough, 1514 V. Lambier, 1900 V. Lambies, 1966 V. Moyer, 1623 V. Payne, 1322 V. Van Deusen, 1996, 2085, 2104, V. Williams. 1861 De Wilton v. Saxon, 1228 De Windt v. De Windt, 405, 417 Dewitt V. Cooper, 505 V. Moulton, 2122, 2366 De Witt V. Eldred, 401, 426, 443, 454, 459, 818 V. San Francisco, 1884, 1S88, 196S De Wolf V. Johnson, 2056, 2071 Dexter v. Arnold, 1899, 2095, 2104 V. Gradner, 1687 V. Harris, 1993 V. Manley, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1166 71. Stewart, 161 r Dey V. Dey, 1622 T. Dunham, 2039, 2042 D^ Vampert v. Brown, 2134 D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107., 120, 128, 137 De Young z/. Buchanan, 1131, 1315, 1316 Diament v. Lore, 976 Diamond Manuf. Co. -u. Atlantic Delaine Co., 2225 Dias 7/. Glover, 1930 Dibble v. Clapp, 789 V Hutton, 647 Dice V. Sheffer, 309 Dick V. Daughton, 912 t'. Mawry, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107 cxu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Dick V. Pitchford, 249, 253, 263, 257, 1577, 1578, 1748 Dickason v. Dawson, 2085 v. Williams, 2006 Dicken v. Johnson, 2341 V. Morgan, 135 Dickenaon v. Chase, 2007 V. Harris, 983 V. Jackson, 800 Dickerraan v. Burgess, 2334 V. Lust, 2171 Dickerson's Appeal, 1579 Dickerson, /« re, 266 Dickeraon v. Brown, 596 V. Chesapeake R. Co., 1928 V. Cook, 2273 V. Talbot, 2300 Dickey v. Lyon, 2241 V. McCullougli, 1863 ti. Thompson, 2153, 2155, 2181 Dickins v. Hamer, 812 Dickinson, Appellant, 1666 Dickinson v. Canal Co., 2230 V. Codwise, 1618, 1619, 1940 V. Davis, 778, 1640, 1647 V. Goodspeed, 1253 V. McLane, 1480 z/. Mayor, 570 V. Robbins, 1242 7'. Williams, i8go, i8g6 Dickson, In re, 267 i)ickson z'. Chorn, 1386, 1442, 1491, 1522 V. Desire, 2362 V. Dickerson, 1488 7'. Dickson's Heirs, 753 z>. Parker, 2035 zf. Saville, 782 Dicus V. Hall, 1440 Dietrick z'. Noel, 2296 Diffendorf z/. Reformed Cal. Church, 34 Digby 7'. Atkinson, logS, 1316, 1317 Digby, Ex Parte, v. Jones, 1242 Digg s Case, 1839, 1843 Digg's Lessee v. Jarman, 1810 Dighton z^. Tomlinson, 319 Dikeman v. Norrie, 1634 Dillaye v. Greenougb, 1696 Diller v. Brubaker, 1728, 1735 V. Roberrs, 1133, 1317 Dillingham v, Fisher, 2306, 2307 V. Hoffman, 2221, 2241 V. Jenkins, 975 V. Snow, 234 Dillon V. Brown, 1026, 1029, 1030, 1296, 2102 V. Birare, 2133 V. Byrare, 2133 V. Byrne, 1491, 1496, 1497 V, Dillon, 525 V. Frayne, 1559 V, Freine, 410 V. Parker, 946 V. Plaskett, 2083 V. Wilson, 2260, 2261 Dilrow V. Bone, 1791 Dilworth v, Mayfield, 1960, 1965 V. Sinderling, 1768 Dimmick v. Dimmick, 1949 Dinion v. Delmonico, 1241 Dimond v. Billingslea, 766 Dimsdale v. Robertson, 1051 Dinehart v. Thompson, 1229 V. Wilson, 1229, 1234, 1909 Dingley v, Buffum, i45t '204, 1266 V. Dingley, 1568 Dingman v. Kelly, looi Dinnan v. Nichols, 2151 Dings V. Parshall, 2136, 2150 Dinsdale v, Ives, 1296 Dinwiddie v. Bell, 1906 DiDpers at Tunbridge Wells, 1364 Dircksz'. Brant, 1205, 1209. 1210 Disborough V. Outcalt, 1748 Disbrow v Folger, 1984 District Attorney v. Lynn & Boston R. Co., 5 District Township of Carwin v. Moorhead, 995 Ditchett V. Hpuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. Co., 1202 Diver z'. Diver, 1024, 1940, 1951, 1952 Divine e/. Mitchum, 1671, 1963 Dix z/. Atkins, 13 14 V. Burford, 1733 Dixfield V. Newton, 2100, 2103 Dixie, Doe d., v. Davies, 1265, 1275 Dixon V. Baty, 1215 V. Dixon, 2007 V. Dixon's Exrs., 1407, 1410 V. Haley, 2270 V. McCue, 956 V. Niccolls, 1230, 1231, 2255, 2257, 2258 V. Nicolls, 2250, 2251 z'. Saville, 940 Doak z/. Donelson's Lessee, 1150, 1266, 1294 V. Wiswell, 127 Doane v. Bodger, 1891, 1892. 2208 z/. Doane, 509, 141 1, 1421 Dob V. Halsey, 1240, 1242, 1243 Dobbin V. Hewett, 2056 V. Rex, igSS Dobbins v. Duquid, 1245 V. Lusch, 1280, 1285, 1295 Dobschuetz v. HoUiday, 123, 1225, 1226 Dobson's Estate, 76 Dobson V. Butler, 771, 920 V. Dobson, 732 V. Lord, 2089 V. Murphy, 878 Docker v. Somes, 76, 1715, 1761 Dockery v. Noble, 2103 Dockham z'. Parker, 1231, 1234, 1239, 1267, 2255 Doda 7'. Burchell, 2211 Dodd V. Acklom, 1161 V. Burchall, 2216 V. Watson, 545, 558, 1898 Dodds V. Snyder, 2153 V. Wilson, 1034 Dodge V. Berry, 71, 72 V. Cole, 1622, 1760 7J. Dodge, 936 V. Evans, 2004, 2005 V. Kinzey, 1944 V. Kinzy, 1919 V. Manning 1760 V. Moore, 318 V. Potter, 2122 V. Stacy, 2206 V. Woolsey, 76 V. Wright, 1 1 54 Dodgley v. Tolberry, 1023 Dodkins z/. Kuykendall, 1384 Dodson z/. Ball, 328, 329, 336, 500, 1602, 1655, 1674, 1694, 1695, 1736, 1737, 1798, 1799 V, Davis, 831 V Hall, 1003 V. Hay, 611, 695 Doe V. Allen, 308, 331, 533 V. Austin, 1 148 V. Baines, 308 V. Barton, 2092 V. Bateman, 1107, 1109 V. Batten, 1345 V. Bernard, 2357 V. Bevan, 257, 1057, 1113 V. Birch, 1058, 1059, 1138 V. Bird, 1914 V. Bliss, 1058 V. Britain, iSao, 1844 V, Brown, 66r, 662, 1362, 1370, 2299 V. Burt, 64, 66 V. Campbell, 2299 V. Carter, 274 V. Chamberlaine, 1259, 1290 V. Chapman, 202 V. Charlton, 425 V. Chase, 993 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXlll . Claridge, 1607 '. Clark, 2341 . Clarke, 260, 272, 340, 343 '. Corrie, 271 . Crai^er, 416, 447, 472 '. David, 1113 '. Davies, 1261 '. Donovau, 1338, 1339 >. Dowail, 2300 '. Driscoll, 271 '. Bugan's Exrs., s^S '. Dyball, 23 '. Kilis, 322 '. Fenn, igoi '. Finch, 456 '. Flanagan, 523 '. Fiynn, T141 '. Freeman, 271 '. Fyldes, 333, 340 '. GaiUers, H13 '. Georgia R. & B. Co., 2324 '. Gilbert, 307 '. Godwin, 1139, 1146 '. Green, 13 11 : Grover, 993 '. Harris, 1788 '. Harter, 312, 343 '. Hawks, 113 '. Hicks, 1596,, 1797 '. Hodgson, 1022 '. Holmes, 340, 344 '. Homfray, 1560 '. Howland, 337 I. Hughes, 1344 '. Hull, 1346, 1347, 1348 '. Hutton, 6go, 184S '. Ironmonger, 300, 1605 '. Jones, 456, 1215, 1868, 1869 '. Keen, 359, 363 '. Killen, 617, 618 '. Kinney. 312 '. Knightley, 1311 '. Lainckbury, 2, 307 '. Lamb, 2257 '. Langlands, 2, 307 '. Laniug, 473 '. Lanius, 2251, 2258 '. Lawder, 1282 '. Laxion, 525 '. Lazenby, 216 '. Maisey, 1279 '. Marriott, 1149 '. McKilvain, 2304 '. McLoskey, 2029, 2063, 2064, 2104 '. Miller, i2go '. Milward, 1344 '. Morgan, 2, 322 '. Morris Canal Co., 2325 '. Needs, 1595 . Nicholls, z88, 299 . Oliver, 2323 . Palmer, 1344, 1345 , Parrott, 1920, 1940 . Pearson, 259, 261, 262, 263 . Pegge, 1 148 . Perkins, 1353 . Porter, 1306 . Presser, 1913 . Pritchard, 1349 . Prosser, 1915 , Raffan, 1317, 1335 . Reade, 1713 . Reynolds, 1144, 1148, 1212 . Richards, 340, 342, 344, 1280 . Rideout, 1306 . Ries, 1000 . Rivers, 387, 600, 692, 693, 702, 703 . Rooke, 1837 . Routledge, 299 . Rutledge, 1553 , Salkeld, 1558 Scott, 1337 Doe v. Scudamore, 694 v. Scuddamore, 693 t>. Seaton, 1074, 1149 Vk Shewin, 1102, 1152 V. Simpson, 970, 973, 980, 1597, 1711 V. Smaridge, 132 1 p. Smith, 1788, 1S31 V, Snelling, 340, 343 V. Spry, 1 184 V. Staples, 1713 V. Thomas, 1296 w. Timins, 780, 1597 V. Tolfield, 307 zi. Turner, 1296, 1348 V, Vincent, 1837 V. Wadell, 2283 V, Walters, 2302 V. Watts, 1254 V. Williams, 307, 309, 312 z/. Wilson, 546 t'. Wood, 1257, 1261, 1262, 1301, 1306 ^. Wright, 331, 1743 V. Wrightmau, 13 11 v, Wroot, 1713 e-. Wichele, 363, 387 Doe d. Abdy&, Stevens, 1139, 1146 Doe d. Allen v Calvert, 1040 Doe d. Anglesea o. Churchwardens of Rugley, 1869 Doe d. Aslin v. Summereett, 1027 Doe d. Bastow v. Cox, 1265, 13 18, 1326 Doe d. Bennett v. Long, 1309 Doe d. Biggs v. White, 1039, 1040 Doe d. Birtwliistle ?'. Vardill, 22S8, 2289 Doe d. Blacknell v. Plowman, 1744 Doe d. Blomfield tt. Eyre, i82ii, 1829, 1S30 Doe d. Bly v. Colman, 1040 Doe d. Booley z'. Roberts, 2 Doe d. Booth v. Field, 1605 Doe d. Bothell v. Martyr, 1626 Doe d. Bowerman c. Sybouni, 1742, 1743 Doe d. Brune 7/. Martyn, 1596 Doe d. Bryan v, Bancks, 1058, 1138 Doe d. Buddie v. Lines, 13 10 Doe d. BuUeu v. Mills, 1148 Doe d, Burne v. Prideaux, 1040 Doe d. Burrell u, Perkins, 1309 Doe d. Cadogan v. Ewart, 300, 315, 322, 1553, T577. 1597, 1605, 1606 Doe d. Calvert f. Frowd, 1309 Doed. Campbell v. Scott, 1339 Doe d. Carson v. Baker, 1255, 1278 Doe d. Carter zj. Barnard, 2299 Doe d. Chadboni ?'. Green, 1303, 1314, 1333 Doe d. Cheese z/. Creed, 1309 Doe d. Clark z>. Smaridge, 1136, 1303, 1307, 1314, 1333. 1335 Doe d. Clarke w. Clarke, 2280 Doe d. Clun z>. Clarke, 1309 Doe d. Collins z'. Weller, 1025, 1264, 1323 Doe d. Cooper v. Finch, 1807 Doe d. Cornwall 7/. Matthews, 13 10 Doe d. Cox V. Day, 1040 Doe d. Crisp v. Barber, 1352 Doe d. Croft zi. Tidbury, 1215, 1306 Doe d. Daggett z'. Snowden, 1308 Doe d. Darke v. Bowditch, 1150 Doe d. Darlington v. Bond, 1140, 1146 V. Ulph. 1 152 Doe d. Davenish z'. Moffatt, 1310 Doe d. Davies z'. Davies, 486, 1594, 1597 zf. Gatacre, 461 z>. Thomas, 1334 Doe d. Davis z;. Evans, 1309 V. Vincent, 1S28 Doe d, De Rutzen 7>. Lewis, 1148, 1863, igor Doe d. Dixie v. Davies, 1265, 1275 Doe d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 427 Doe d. Dormer z/. Wilson, 1920, 1930, 1939 Doe d. Dyke v. Whittingham, 1570 Doe d, Dymoke z>. Withers, 1039 Doe d. Egremont v. Langdon, 1743 CXIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Doe d. Evans v. Evans, 307 Doe d. Fisher v. Giles, 1279 V. Prossefj 518 Doe d. Foster v. Waudlass, 1060 V. Williams, 1309 Doe d. Fowler z/. Peck, 1074, 1075, 1152, 1868, 1869 Doe d. Godsell v. Inglis, 1310 Doe d. Gratrex v. Hompray, 299, 1574, 1583, 1606 Doe d. Graves z/. Wells, 1144, 1145, 1336 Doe d. Gray v. Stanion, 1276, 1290 Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 549, 550 V. Grubb, 1309 Doe d. Hall v. Tunnel!, 2084, 2091 Doe d. Hallen v. Ironmonger, 1709 Doe d. Hammond v. Cooke, 1743, 1744 Doe d. Hampton v. Shelter, 1811 Doe d. Harrington v. Dill, 341 Doe d. Harris v. Masters, 1062, 1861 Doe d. Harrison v. Murrell, 1215 Doe d. Harvey v. Francis, 1318, 1326 Doe d Hatt v. Miller, 1272 Doe d. Hayes z/- Sturges, 1021 Doe d. Herbert v. Thomas, 348, 1814 Doe d. Hogg V. Taylor, 1308 Doe d. Hollingsworth v. Stennett, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1278, 1284, 1290 Doe d. Holt V. Harrocks, 607 Doe d. Howell, z'. Howell, 1294 Doe d. Hull V. Greenhill, 1579 V. Wood, 1265, 1280, 1306, 1320, 1325 Doe d. Hurrell v. Hunell, 309 Doe d. Jeffries v. Whittick, 1309 Doe d. Jones v. Jones, 1261, 1275 Doe d. Knight v. Nepean, 522 V. Quigley, 1269, 1278, 1293 Doe d, Knott v. Lawton, 312 Doe d. Lancashire v. Lancashire, 228a Doe d, Landsell v. Gower, 1309 Doe d. Lean v. Lean, 310 Doe d. Leicester©. Briggs, 1560, 1574, 1607 Doe d. Lewis z'. Reed, 1306 z>. Rees, 1215 Doe d. Litscombe v. Yates, 265 Doe d. Lloyd w. Passingham, 1556, 1558, 1559, 1583, 1655 ,Doe d. Lockwood v, Clarke, 1076 Doe d. Lord v. Crago, 1265, 132c, 1324 Doe d. Martin z/. Watts, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1325, 1337 Doe d. Mitchinson v. Carter, 1056, 1057, 1105, II 13, 1869 Doe d. Moncic v. Geekie, 1314, 1333 Doe d. Muller v. Claridge, 1797 Doe d. Muston v. Gladwin, 1152 Doe d. NichoU v. McKaeg, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1275 Doe d» Otley v. Mannmg, 1626 Doe d. Parry v. Hazell, 1328, 1335, 1337, 1340, 1341 Doe d. Peacock v. Raffau, 1328, 1339, 1341, 1342 Doe d. Pearson v. Ries, looi Doe d. Pennington v. Taniere, 1320, 1331, 1332 Doe d. Player v. Nicholls, 1553, 1595, 1597, 1694, 1797 Doe d. Phillip v. Benjamin, looi Doe d. Phillips v. Butler, 1336 7'. Rollings, 1309 Doe d. Pidgen v. Richards, 1263, 1293, 1295 Doe d. Pitt V. Hogg, 1146 Doe d. Pratt v. Timins, 1595, 1596 Doe d. Price v. Price, 1267, 1293, 1326 Doe d. Prior v. Ongley, 1266 Doe d. Puddicombe v. Harris, 1308 Doe d. Rains z*. Keller, 1150 Doe d. Read v. Ridout, 1335 Doe d. Rendle, 1040 Doe,d. Rigge v. Bell, 1022, 1136, 1323 Doe d. Riggs v. Bell, 1013, 1014 Doe d. Roberts v. Polgrean, 1360, 1361 Doe d. Robertson z*. Gardiner, 1320 Doe d. Robinson v. Dobell, 1310 Doe d. Roby v. Maisey, 1295, 1350 Doe d, Rogers v, Coote, 1039 V. Pullen, 1258, 1294 Doe d. Routledge, 1626 Doe d. Shelley v. Edlin, 300, 1595, 1605 Doe d. Sheppard v. Allen, 1104 Doe d. Shore z-. Porter, 1135, 1136, 1254) 1270, 1299, 1301, 1308, 1334 Doe d. Smyth v. Smyth, 1788, 1844 Doe d. Spencer v. Clark, 436 Doe d. Spicer v. Lea, 1308 Doe d. Stevens v. Scott, 1605 Doe d. Strickland v. Spence, 1333, 1337 Doe d. Sutton v. Harvey, 1040 Dee d. Terry v. Collier, 1574, 1655 Doe d. Tilt zj. Stratton, 1269, 1293, 1310 Doe d. Thompson v. Gibson, 1549, 1550 V. Pitcher, 1687 , Doe d. Thomson v. Amey, 1313, 1316 Doe d. Tucker v. Morse, 1325 Doe d. Upton v. Wilherwick, 1206 Doe d. Warner z/. Browne, 1307, 1308, 1313, 1320 1336 Doe d. Watt v. Morris. 1347 Doe d. Webb v. Dixon, 1008 Doe d. Westmoreland v. Smith, 1314 Doe d. Whayinan v. Chaplin, 1027 Doe d. Wheeldon v. Paul, 1154 Doe d. Whitaker v. HaleS, 2065 Doe d. White zj. Simpson, 1595, 1596 Doe d. Whitehead v. Pittman, 1141 Doe d. Wilkinsons v. Fleming, 1923 Doe d. Williams v. Cooper, 1309 V. Matthews, 1039 V. Pasquali, 1309 V. Smith, 1336 Doe d. Willis" z*. Martin, 1559 Doe d. Wilson v. Phillips, 1150 Doe d. Woodcock v. Barthrop, 1597, 1605 Doe d. Wooden v. Shotwell, 5 Doe d. Wright v. Gooden, 234 V. Plumptre, 651, 1366 Doe d. Wyatt v. Byron, 1108 Doe ex d. Bastow v. Cox, 1256, 1275, 1278, 1294, 1295 Doe ex d. Birthwhistle z). Vardell, 719 Doe ex d. Bunny v. Rout, 2 Doe ex d. Burkett v. Chapman, 307 Doe ex d. Cnllender v. Sherman, 1217, 1219 Doe ex d. Carson zj. Baker, 1258, 1260, 1269, 1271, 1275, 127S, 1294, 1301, 1324 Doe ex d. Castletou v. Samuel, 1308 Doe ex d. Chandler v. Douglass, 2328 V. Smith, 426 Doe ex d. Clarke v. Clarke, 618 Doe ex d. Clinton v. Campbell, 517 Doe ex d. Cook v. Webb, 734, 838 Doe ex d. Cooper, 423 Doe ex d. Cotton v. Stenlake, 345 Doe ex d. Cox r. Day, 2353 Doe ex d. Dalton -v. Jones, 564 Doe ex d. Davison v. Frew, 791 Doe ex d. De Peyster v. Howland, 1025 Doe ex d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 448 Doe ex d. Evans v. Evans, 202 Doe ex d. Flower v. Pick, 1074, 1075, 1152, 1S68, i86g Doe ex d. Freeland v. Burt, 1015 Doe ex d. Garnons v. Knight, 1786 Doe ex d. Glenn v. Peters, 1225 Doe ex d. Gorham v. Brcnon, 1216, 1217 Doe ex d. Gouverneur's Heirs v. Robertson, 214, 215, 675 Doe ex d. Green z>. Baker, 1138 Doe ex d. Groves v. Groves, 1254, 1261, 1275 Doe ex d. Grubb v. Burlington, 564 Doe ex d. Harrington v. Dill, 326 Doe ex d. Hollingsworth v. Stennett, 130S Doe ex d. Jackson zi. Ashburner, 993 iJ)oe ex d. Jeff v. Robinson, 527 Doe ex d. King v. Frost, 321 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. fXV Doe ex d. Kluge v. Lachenour, 1217 Doe ex d. Knight v. Quigley, 1270 Doe ex d. Lloyd ». Passingham, 298 Doe ex d. Lockwood v, Clark, 1113 Doe ex d. Longw. Prigg, 314, 315 Doe ex d. Lunsford v. Alexander, 1216, 1217 Doe ex d. Lyster 7'. Goldwiu, 6S9, 2062 Doe ex d. Marriott v. Edwards, 1148 Doe ex d. Martin v. Watts, 1256, 1270, 1299, 1313 Doe ex d. Miller v. Rogers. 673 Doe ex d. Morgan v. Morgan, 307 Doe ex d. Newton?^, Roe, 1159 Doe ex d. Nutt v. Nutt, 752, S35 Doe ex d. Palk v, Marchetti, 1139 Doe ex d. Patterson 2>. Richards, 1251, 1260 Doe ex d. Peyster v. Rowland, 1931, 1932, 1933, 2346 Doe ex d. Pidgeon v. Richards, 1251, 1260 Doe ex d. Pitt^-. Hogg, 1105 X>oe ex d. Player zi. NichoUs, 314, 315, 970, 1711 Doe ex d. Poor v. Considine, 1797 Doe ex d. Rawlings v. Walker, 971, 977, 978, 1 163 Doe ex d, Reade v. Reade, 1707 Doe ex d. Regge v. Bell, 1270 Doe ex d. Riddell v. Gwinnell, 709, 711, 790, S53 Doe ex d. Rigger. BeU, 1135 Doe ex d. Shore v. Porter, 1310 Doe ex d. Thomson w. Amey, 563 Doe exd. Thorley ». Thorley, 337, 487 Doe ex d. Thorn v. Phillips, 340, 342 Doe ex d. Tomes v. Cliamberlaine, 1272 Doe ex d. Upton v. Witlierick, 47 Doe ex d. Webb v. Dixon, 970 Doe exd. Wheedon 11. Lea, 315 Doe ex d. Wheeldon ?•. Paul, 1059, io6r Doe ex d. White v. Simpson, 1710 Doe exd. Winders. Lawes, 1163 Doe exd. Woodcock v. Barthrop, 1710, 1711 Doebler's Appeal, 249, 1694 Doellner v. Tynan, 5 Doggett V, Hart, 1741, 1744, 1745 V. Norton, 1212 Doherty*. Allman, 554 Doidge V. Bowers, 1255, 1324 Dolan V. Mayor, etc, of Baltimore. 1717 Dold V. Geiger, 1363, 1364, 1367, 1368, 1369 Dole If, Olmstead, 1727 Dolese ». Barberot, 1052, 1331 Dolf V. Bassett, S41, 843 Doll V. Anderson, 982 Dollman v Harris, L451 Dolman z'. Cools, 2069, 2079, 2147 Dolph V. White, iioo Domestic Tel. & T. Co. z-. Metropolitan TeL & T. Co., 1087 Dominick z/. Michael, 645, 985, 1031, 1S06, 2343 Dommet v. Bedford, 260, 272, 274 Donahue's Estate, 355, 2278 Donahue v. Hubbai^, 1955 V. Mayor of New York, 5 Donalds v. Plumb, 1580 Donaldson 7>. Bank of Cape Fear, 1962 v. Lamprey, 1465 ■D. Phillips, 368, 2058, 2289 V. Rouzan, 1488, 1502 V. Smith, 1006 V. Volts, 1509 Donegan v. Wade, 267 Donellan v. Read, 2252 Donhaven's Appeal, 2334 Donkersley z/. Levy, 1 162 Donley v. Hayes, 2155 V. Hays, 2099,2105, 2107, 2111 Donnell v. Harshe, 1239 Donnelly v. Decker, 199 •V. Donnely, 751, 752, 755, 770 V. Simonton, 1999, 2132 V. Thieben, 1187 Donnelly's Heirs v. Donnelly's Heirs, 751, 769 Donnels v. Edwards, 1885 Donner v. Redenbaugh, 1476, 1484 Donnor v. Quartermas, 1975 Douoghue V. Chicago, 856 Dononue v. Chase, 2090 7'. McNichol, 1682 Donovan v. Donovan, 309, 312 V. Pitcher, 236 Doody ?'. Pierce, 2127, 2128, 2129 Doolan v. McCauley; 1020 Dooley ?'. Baynes, 627 V, Potter, 2033 Doolittle v. Blakesley, 1900 V. Eddy, 970, 1268, 1272, 1283, 2212 V. Lewis, 1820, T835, 1843 Door V. Dudderar, 2081 Dopp V. Albee, 1504, 1517 Doran V. Chase, 11G6 Dorchester v. Coventry, 823, 843, 844 ■V. Effingham, 1692 Doremus, Doe d., v. Zabriskie, 427 Borland v. Borland, 180/ Dormer's Case, 1147 Borr z'. Barney, 1317, 1322, 1323 V. Harrahan, 267, 268 V. Munsell, 1033 V. Wainwright, 434, 437 Dorrance v. Jones, 1114, 1117. 2266 V. Scott, 1376, 1674 Dorrance's Admr- v. Commonwealth, 50 Borrell v. Johnson, 1125, 1296, 1310, 1346, 1347, 1350. '357 Dorrill v. Stephens, 1132 Borrow v. Kelly, 2139 Dorsett 7>, Cray, 2251, 2252, 2257, 2258 Dorsey v. Dorsey, 1707, 1766, 1769 z*. Eagle, 1209 7>. Hall, 2015 z/. McFarland, 1450, 1473 V. St. Louis. A. & T. H. R. R. Co., 1071 V. Smith, 746 Dostal z'. McCadden, no, 144, 145 Doswell z'. Be La Lauza, 2299 Botan z/. Russell, 1997, 1998, 2085 Dothard v. Benson, 2296, 2298 Bott z/. Cunnington, 408 V. Willson, 1S78, 1884 Botterer z'. Pike, 1622 Boty V. Baker, 746 z/. Burdick, 1140, 1159, 1217 7f. Gorhani, 131, 142, 147, 1137, 1187 V. Mitchell, 1375, 1562 Bougal V. Fryer, 2^9, 263 Bougail V. Bougall, 1690 Dougherty v. Jack, 520 ZI. McColgan, 2088, 2168 zf. Moriett's Lessee, 534 V. Thompson, 1277 Doughty ZI. Browne, 306, 310, 331, 334 V. Hope, 1515 v. Sheriff, 1510 Bouglas V. Anderson, 1317 V. Cruger, 677, 1372, 1604, 1753, 1798 Zf. Dickinson, 764 z;. Feay, 916, 934 v. Scot, 2300 V. Shumway, 55, 2364 Douglass V. IJryce, 1640, 1647 z>. Clark, 2025, 2026 V. Cline, 98, 2066 Zf. Darin, 2084 V. Dixon, 765 z'. Durin, 2100, 2102, 3147 Zf. Fulda, 1039 V. Kline, 1036 V. McCoy, 733, 736, 739, 907 V. Scott, 1349, 2358 V. Wells, 2166 V. Wiggins, 564, 1 107 Bougrey v. Topping, 923, 924 Boupe V. Cenin, 1083, 1106, 1176, iigi, 1196, ii97j 120a CXVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Dow V. Dow, 707, 776 V. Jewell, 1646, 1651, 1654, 1976 V. McKenney, 2296 Dowels -u. Pond, 80 V. Henniiigs, 2231, 2236 V. Salliotte, 1953 Downer -u. Button, 2107 V. Clement, 2149 V. Fox, 2136, Z13S V. Smith, 2321 V. South Ralston Bank, 2036 V, South Royalton Bank, 2123 V, Wilson, 2075, 2130, 2172 Downes v. Grazebrook, 1580, 1621, 2163 V. Turner. 186S Downey v. Borden, 338 Downie v. White, 136 Downing -v. Marshall, 1559, 1603 ■D. Palmateer, 2140, 2165 V. Wherrin, 322, 323 Downs V. Allen, 732, 1036 V. Cooper, 1149 7'. Hopkins, ic&% 2087 Dows V. Congdon, 83 Doyal V. Smith, 271 Doyle V. Blake, 1599, 1786 V. Cobuni, 1398, 1403, 1405, 1406, 1450, 1462, 147S V. Gibbs, 1287, 12S9 V. Lord, 2223 V, MuUady, 414. 415, 443, 467, 475 V. Murphy, 1615, 1704 V. O'Neill, 1316 V. Teas, 1777 V. White, 2031 Doyler z/. Attorney-General, 181& Doyley v. Attorney-General, 1663, 1685, 1841 Dozier v. Gregory, 565 Drake v. Bowditcb, 1 138 V. Gilmore, 671 V. Mcx>re, 1432 V. Newton, g8i, 996, 1013, 1264, 1322 v, Ramsey, 905, gS6, 1031 V. Root, 1441, 2076, 2078 V. Rout, 1479 V. Wells, 55, 56, 2313 Drane v. Gregory, igSS. 1976 V. Gregory's Heirs, 1150, 1222 V. Gunter, 1787 Draper 7'. Baker, 783 V. Draper, 1361 V, Jackson, 1S37, 1931, 1932,2014 V. Stouvenal, 1035 Drayto-i v. Grimke, 1835 V. Marshall, 2095, 2158 Drenuei) zk Walker, 831, igo6 Dresbock v. McArthur, 2305 Dresser v. Dresser, 1593, 1629 Dreutzer v. Bell, 1480, 1481 Drew 7'. Lockett, 2136 V. Rust, 810, Z182 Drewery v. Montgomery, 824, 1964 Drewry z;. Barron, 331 Drexler v. Tyrrell, 2059 Driggs V. Dwight, 1092 Drink v. Richtmyer, 982 Driver v. Hussey, 456 •u. Maxwell, 1083 Drohan v. Drohan, 1037 Drown V. Smith, 555, 2319 Druce v. Dennison, 943 Drucker v. Rosenstein, 1442 Druhan z*. Adam, 1152, 1228 Druid Park Heights Co. v. Oeltinger, 1599 Drum V. Simpson, 1648 Drummer v. Pitcher, 944 Drummond v. Duke of St. Albans, 1027,2162 f. Hopper, 1033 V. Sent, 2094 Drury v. Batchelaer, 1465 V. Clark, 2150 V. Drury, 923, 952, 957, 960 Drury t/. Foster. 882, 2340 V, Milwaukee & S. R. R. Co., 1586, 1616 V. Tremont Imp. Co., 2068, 2069 Drusadow v. Wilde, 310 Druse v. Wheeler, 2212 Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 42, 44, 816 Dryden v. Haiiway, 1650, 1697, 1699 V. Frost, 491 Drysdale^s Appeal, 1751 Dubber v. Trollop, 409 Dublin & W. R. Co. v. Black, 1031 Dubois' Appeal, 2102 Dubois V. Beaver, 56, 57, 570, 2235 V. Campau, 1990 V. Hull, 2008, 2009 V. Kelly, 55, 119, 1186, 1204 V. Marshall, 2295 zi. McLean, 2332 Dubose V. Dubose, 1749 Dubs 7/. Dubs, 616, 654, 65s, 675, 678, 679, 685, 687, 781, 1372, 1561 Ducey Lumber Co. v. Lane, 2261 Ducker v. Belt, 2149 V. Rapp, 2267 Ducland v. Roseau, 2078 Ducommun's Appeal, 1733 Dudden 71. Guardians, 2231 Dudley v. Bergen, 2130 V. Bosworth, 1639, 1640, 1643, 1646, 1653 V. Cadwell, 2104, 2300 V. Caldwell, 1995 7*. Davenport, 963 V. Dickson, 2008 V. Eastman, 927 V. Foote, 105, 107 V. Grayson, 2014 V. Hurst, 106, 117, 132, 13$ V. Kelly, 2261 7/. Shaw, 1473, 1480 V. Sumner, 2313 V. Warde, 128 V. Witter, 1777 Dudley Canal v. Grazebrook, 2227 Duer V. Boyd, 416, 433 Duff V. Beauchamp, 1919 7'. Wilson, 1080, io8r, I2ZO, 1990 Duffy zi. Calvert, 1578, 1749 zi. Duncan, 695, 1715 V. Ins. Co., 1561 V. Ogden, 1338 Dufour V. Camfranc, 1488, 150Z Dugan V. Gittings, 679, 959 V, Massey, 792, 914 Dugdale, Re, 249, 252, 499 V. Robertson, 92 Dugger V. Dugger, 683, 699, 1464 Du Hourmelin v. Sheldon, 1657 Duhring ZI. Duhring, 786, 787, 824 Duke ZI. Balme, 2005 ZI. Brandt, 799 Z.I. Hague, 1026 z/. Harper, gg6, 1141, 1144, 1146, 1148, 1150, 1256, 1264, 1284, 1297, 1309, 1322, 1348 V. Reed, 1407 Duke of Cumberland v. Graves, 221 Duke of Norfolk's Case, 372, 1544 Duke of Rutland v. Hudson, 1865 Dulanty v. Pynchon, 1461 Dulency v. Green, 1033 Duley V. Kelley, 1261, 2261 Dumaresly v. Fishly, 594, sgs, 751 Dumas, Eg parte, ly^t Dumey z'. bchoeffler, 271, 1858 Dummcrz/. Pitcher, gi8 Dumn V. Rothermel, 996, 997, 1284, 1320, 1325, i335f 1338 Dumond v. Magee, 664 71. Strungham, 341 Dumont z>. Dufore, 1900 z>. Kellogg, 2225 Dumoulin v. Druit, 595 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXVll Dumphy v. Riddle, 8io Dumpor's Case, iS68 Dumpor v. Symmons, 1250 Dunbar v. Juuiper, 2262 Dimbartou v, Franklin, 596, 752 Duncan's Appeal, 794, 913 Duncan v. Alexander, 1391, 1393 z'. Bickford, 1947 v. Blake, 2255 V. City of Terre Haute, 670, 796, 821, 828, 893. 921 V. Dick, 720, 869 V. Drury, 811, 2097 7'. Duncan, 596, 752,935, 948, 2365 V. Farrer, 1^3, 1969 7'. Helm, 2057 7'. Hodges, 2338, 2339, 2340 "'. Jaudon, 1623, 1661, 1740, 1761, 1765 v. McCullougli, 1033 V. Miller, 2025, 2026 z>. Potts, 1260, 1269, 1271, 1313 V. Smith, 810, 2097 V. Sylvester, 1905, 1911, 1924, 1967, 1979 Dunch T'. Kent, 1749 Duncomb v, Dunconib,8i5 v. New York, H. & N. R. Co., 1768 Duncombe v. Felt, 1223 V. Mayer, 491 Dundas v. Bowler, 2101 7'. Hitchcock, 904 Dunham v. Biscoff, 2072 V. Chatham, 1947 •u. Cincinnati, P. Ei C. R. Co., 2018 V. Dey, 2 121 V. Isett, 2018 V. Osborne, 703, 761, 762, 798, 815, 820, 826 zi. Railway Co., 2019 V. Rogers, 1240, 1648 71. Wnght, 2345 Dunk V. Hunter, 1281 Dunker z/. Chedic, 1482, 1483 Uunklee v. Adams, 1871, 1S72 V. Wilton R. Co., 2242 Dunkley v. Van Buren, 2158, 2165 Dunlap V. BuUard, 1072, 1115, 1124, 1139, 2257 V. Thomas, goS V. Wilson, 2073 Dunlop 2'. Avery, 2 118 V. Ball, 518 V. Harrison's Exr., 1759 Dunn V. Bagby, 1190 V. Barton, 1141 V. Bryan, 543 V. Keeling, 1806 V. Kelly, 2272 V. I^eidy, 1763 V. Raley, 2038 V. Rogers, 2068 V. Rothermel, 1275 V. Sargent, 1910 V. Tillery, 1292 V. Tozer, 1450, 1452, i4S9» 1462, 1473, 1475 Dunne v. Dunne, 265 V. Ferguson, 46, 50, 51, 52 V. Trustees, 1258, 1261, 1269, 12S1, 1293, 1295, 1339 Dunner v. Pitcher, 779 Dunnica v. Coy, 1641 Dunning w. Finson, 1280, 1290 V. The Ocean National Bank, 94, 1577, 1662, 1752, 2164 V. Vandusen, 486 V. Wherren, 470 Dunscomb v. Dunscomb's Exrs., 607, 611, 630, 679, 680, 695, J715, 1716, 1725 Dunseth v- Bank of United States, 789, 823, 842 7'. Banks, 841 Dunshee 7j. Grundy, 1144, 1216, 2258 V. Parmelee, 2133 Dunton v. Brown, 103 1 V, Harrison's Exrs., 1621 V. Woodbury, 1466 Dupas V. Wassell, 9S4, 1035 Duppa V. Mayo, 1060, 1061, 1862, 2270 V. Mayor, i86g Dupre V. Thompson, 1792 Dupree Z'. McDonald, 645 Dupuy V. Leavenworth, 824 V. Wickwire, 2332 Durand v. Curtis, 2262, 2265 V. Isaacks, 2078, 2151 Durando v. Durando, 206,601,711,759, 761, 762, 815,819 V. Wyman, 11 19 Durant ?/. Johnson, 1918 V. Ritchie, 298, 1558 V. Palmer, 1202 Durel V. Boisblanc, 2213, 2223 Durfee v. Knowles, 2033 V. Pavitt. 1652 Durham v. Angier, 888, 930, 931 v. Bishop, 2072 V. Speeke, 2272 Durkee v. Felton, 740 V, Stringham, 44 Durland z'. Seller, 1463,1495, 1496,1514, 1520, 1521 Durr V, Sim, 1605 Durrett v. Whiting, 2156 Duruty v. MusaccTiia, 1947, 1948 Duryee v. Turner, 2255 Dusenberry v Dawson, 221 Dustin V. Cowdry, 1357 V. Steele, 901, 911, 912 Dutch Church v. Mott, 1742 Dutcher v. Culver, 2250 Dutoit z'. Uoyle, 2279 Dutton 7', Colby, 1274 V. Gerrisli, 1054, 1055, 1066, 1175, 1200 V. Ives, 2297 V. Warschaner, 1999, 2078 Dutro V. Wilson, 976, 1225 Duval V. Bibb, 1549, 1566,2006 7'. McLosky, 2077, 2078, 21 10 Du Val V. Johnson, 2142 V. Marshall, 1633, 1646 Duvall V. Craig, 729 V. Waters, 549, 550, 569, 570, 572.573, 574. 575. 576, 577, 2334 Dwen 7'. Blake, 2002 Dwenger v. Geary, 41I Dwight V. Cutler, 1290, 1291, 2260, 2271 ZI. Mudge, 1069 I Dwinel v. Perley, 799, 2105 Dwinneli v. Edwards, 1416, 1434 Dwyer v. Carroll, 1192, 1193 V. Garlough, 888 V. Newman, 1313 Dye 7'. Cook, 1383, 1396 z/. Mann, 1450, 1473, 1475, 1478, 2137, 2140 Dyer's Appeal, 1689, i6gi Dyer, Matter of, 1023 Dyer 71. Brannock, 596, 751 V. City of St. Paul, 2233 V. Clark, 786, 787, 824, 825, 1671, 1957, ig6r, 1963, 1965 V. Depui, 2247 V. Dyer, 1633, 1646, 1647 V. Martin, 2004 V. Osborne, 42 V. Sanford, 2240, 2245, 2246, 2247, 2303 V. Shurtleff, 2163 V. Wightman, 1067, logS, 1117,1126, 1172, 1 175 V. Wilber, 1894 V. Wittle, 629 V, Wittier, 570 V. Wrightman, 2269 Dye V. North American Coal Co., 1373, 1562 CXVIU TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Dyett V, Pendleton, 1127, 1128, 1166, 1168, 1169, 1172, 1174 Dyke v. Randall, 952, 953,956 Dyke, Doe d., v. Whittingham, 1570 Dymoke, Doe d., v. Withers, 1039 Dyson v. CoUick, 57 V. Sheley, 1378, 1387, 1420 E. Eade v. Eade, 1627, 1629, 1632 Eadon v. JefEcock, 90, 93 Eads V. Retherford, 1905 V. Rucker, 1904 Eager v. Commonwealth, 2176 V. Funiivall, 602, 684 Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent, 1032, 2089, 2343 Eagles -v. Eagles,. 861 Kakin v. Brown, 1200 V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 1041 Eales V. England, 1630 Eardley v. Granville, 84 Eare v. Snow, 885 Earl V. Beadleston, 1193, 1194, 1195 V. De Hart, 72, 2238 V. Grim, 310 Earl of Buckingham v. Drury, 923 Earl of Buckinghamshire v. Hobart, 510 Earl of Pembroke's Case, iggi Earl of Pomfret v. Windsor, 1783 Earle v. Earle, 1407, 1660 V. Hale, 1216 V. Reed, 2343 z'. Washburn, 1580 ■V. Wilson, 2281 V, Wood, 1886 Earle's Admx. v. Hale's Admr., 1216, 1217 Early v. Burtis, 134 V. Friend, 1905 Earsham v. Myers, 1923 Eashy v. Larkington, 2064 Easter v. Little Miami R. Co., 268 Easterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 161 1 Eastern R. Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co., 2327 Eastham v. Anderson, 982 East India Co. v. Atkyns, 216S V. Clavell, 1626 East Lincolnshire R. Co., Re,c^h Eastman v. Amskeag Mfg. Co., 2325 s7. Batchelder, 266, 2032 V. Caswell, 1514 V. Foster, 63, 140, 2022 V. Perkins, 1000, 1002 Easton v. Pratt, 1040 Eaton V. Campbell, 492 V. Eaton, 2345 7). Green, 2038, 2043, 2049, 2052 •V. Jacques, 979, 1074, 1077 . V. Mason, 2152 z/. Simonds, 802, 803, 808, 8og, 2090, 2097, 2172, 2182 7). Southby, 52 V. Straw, 487, 1820 ■V. Tillinghast, 1791 •u. Watts, 1630 V. Whitaker, 994, 1024, 1025, 1363, 1368 V. Whiting, 1995, 2050, 2062 Eaves v. Estes, ri6, 117, 132, 143, 144 Ebbets V. Quick, 415 Eberle v. Fisher, 888, 8go, 907 Eberlien v, Abel, 1343 Ebert v. Fisher, 1983 V. Gerding, 2136, 2137 V. Wood, 1977 Eberts v. Fisher, 1152 Ebey z-. Ebey, 779, 831 Ebrand v. Dancer, 1647 Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Ins. Co., 631 Eby's Appeal, 76, 291 Echelkamp 7>. Schrader, 572 Eckert V. Reuter, 1514, 2012 Eckman v. Eckman, 2316, 2331, 2359 Eddy V. Baldwin, 1647 Edelmen v. Yeakel, 2312 Edgarton v. Young, 520, 810, 1580 Edge V. Worthingtou, 2002 Edgell V. Hazens, 1480 V. Stanfords, 2028, 2029 Edgerton v. Hufif, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73 V. Page, 1082, 1128, 1129, 1166, 1168, 1169 V. Paige, 1 1 74 V. Young, 2096, 2097, 2105, 2106, 2157 Edgewood v. Railway Co., 2328 Edgewood R. Co's Appeal, 2328 Edgington v. Hefner, 2132 Edmands v. Mut. S. F. Ins. Co., 2117 Edmonds v. Crenshaw, 1734 ti. Eastwood, 2254 Edmondsou w. Fort, 1247 V. Hyde, 1483, 14S4 V. Kite, 1278 V, Montague, 782 Edmonson v. Blessing, 1450, 1467 z', Meacham, 1481 V. Welch, 827 V. Welsh, 764, 765, 831 Edmuns v. Povey, 2139 Edmunson v. Kite, 1262, 2270 Edrington v. Harper, 1363, 1368, 1369, 2037, 2038,. 2047, 2052, 2053, 2054 Edsall V. Buchanan, 2095 Edson z*. Colbum, 1236, 1237, V. Munsell, 2291, 2292 Edward's Appeal, 2272 Edward v. Cheyne, 1562 V. Barnes, 2, 307 V. Bibb, 447, 815, 820, 821, 826, 889 V. Bishop, 535 V. Brinker, 2366 V. Candy, 1168 V. Culberson, 1616 V. Culbertson, 15S6 V. Edwards, 1425, 1649, 1653, 2009 V. Farmers' Fire Ins. Co., 799, 2131 V. Freeman, 19 V. Fry, 1443 7'. Grand Trunk R. Co., 55 V. Hale, 1348, 1351, 1353, 1355 V. Hall, 42 V. Heatherington, 1200 V. Hetherington, 1177, 1200, 2269 V. Kearzey, 1510, 1512, 1513 V. New York& H. R. Co., 198, 1054 V. Perkins, 974, 975, 981 V. Salter, 1844 V. Sanders, 2155 V. Sheridan, 647 V. Slater, 1826, 1845 V. Sleater, 1805, 1806 V. Stevens, 1514 71. Sullivan, 901 V. Taliafero, 2013 V. Trumbull, 2003, 2004 V. University, 1781 Edwardsville R. Co. v. Sawyer, 281, 531 Eels z'. Lynch, 75 Egbert v. Butter, 1733 Ege V. Medlar, 630, 655, 656, 677, 682, 684, 1372, 2298 Egemont v. Hellins, 1039 Egertou v. Brownlow, 1569, 1570, 1609 z'. Brownlow's Estate, 1539 V. Earle. etc., 454 Eggz/. Devey, 267 Eggleston v. Bradford, 2358 V. New York & H. R. R. Co., 1282 Egremont, Doe d. d. Langdon, 1743 Ehle V. Quackenboss, 2275, 2276 Ehrman v. Mayer, 2268 Eichart v. Bargas, 1154 Eichelberger v. Bamitz, 396, 414, 416, 418, 434 Eicman ik Finch, 2171 Eidson v, Fontain, 645 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXIX Eitelgeorge v. Mutual House Building Asso- ciation, 1755 Elbers v. United Ins. Co.. 1456 Elder w. Reel. 8S7, 891,892,894,895,921 ]':i Dorado Co. w. Davidson, 1035 Kldred v. Leahy, 1082, 2258 Eldredge v. Bell, 1143 V. Forestal, 798 V. Forrestal, 703, 761, 815 v. Pierce. 1524 V. Preble, 634 Eldridge v. Fisher, 416, 447, 472 V. Kin^sburv 2083 z>. Pierce, 13S1, 1476 w. Preble, 477, 479, 491, 626 V. See Yup t"o, , i6Sg V. Smith, 2DJI YM^.v. Cole, 1993, 1999, 2078 Elias V. Snowden Slate Quarries, 494 V. Verdugo, 1426 Eliot V. Thatcher, 1378, 1379 Elkin V. Meredith, 890 Elkius V. Edwards, 2093, 2094 EUcock V. Mapy, 1637 Ellerbrock z'. Flyiin, 1144 Ellett V, Reid, 2333 EUice, Ex parte, 1721 EUicot V. Welch, 777, 832, 2005 V. Mosier, 86i, 865, 866, 868, 870, 933, 956 ElUnger 7'. Crowl, 1623 Ellingsworlh v. Cook, 692, 703 Elliot V. Davis, 2356 V. Frakes, 1924 V. Smith, 542, 545, 546, 724 v. Sleeper, 2133 Elliotson V. Fleetham, 2250 Elliott, £jr^(ir/e, 1754 Elliott V. Aiken, 1054, 1068, 1083, 1106, 1107, 1 1 28, 1200 V. Armstrong, 1576, 1635 V. Ashland Mut. Fire Ins. Co.. 2113 V. Bishop, 129 V. Dycke, 1212 •V. Fisher, 76, 1560 ■V. Fitchburgh R. Co., loi 1}. Gower, 2012, 2013 V. Horn, 1624 V. luce, 1034 V. Maxwell, 2044, 2054 V, McKay, i8g6 V. Minto, 368, 369, 719, 2057, 2058, 2289 •u. Morris, i8g8 V. Nichols, 1919, 1940, 1950 V. Northeastern R. Co., 2229, 2232 V. Pearsall, 411 V. PearsoU, 413, 443, 903 V. Perasoll, 467 V. Rhett, 2246 V. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 1051 V. Sackett, 2068, 2069 V. Stone, 1027, 1278, 1284 V, Teal, 1364, 1366 z/. Turner, 1871, 1872 7'. Wood, 2001, 2038, 2163 Ellis V. Davis, 1404 V. Duncan, 2230 V. Ellis, 870, 1632, 1633 V. Fisher, 1595, 1709, 1710, 1712, 1797 V. Foster, 2251 V, Fusher, 336 V. Guavas, 2148 V. Hussey, 1998, 2077 V. Johnson, 2071, 2166 V. Kenyon, 2r52 V. Leek, 2144 If. Lewis, 943, 945 V. Martin, 2020, 2140 V. Pa^e, 147, 1269 ». Paige, 131,997, 1136, T137, 1187, 1252, 1264, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1284, 1285, 1295, 12^6, 1299, 1304, 1305, 1322, 1338 V, White, 1400 Ellison's Trust, Re, 1788 Ellison V. Airey, 326 V. Brigham, 56 V. Daniels, 1995, 1998, 2063, 2104, 3ixx V. Ellison, 17Q1 ElHss V, Kreutzinger, 2 118 V. Nimmo, 1841 Elloit V. Fitchburg R. Co., 72, 2228 Ells V. Sims, 2024 Ellsworth V. Cook, 600, 601,603, 607, 613, 630 V. Hale, 1266, 1280 V. Hinds, 1024, 1362, 1370 V, Lockwood, 2074, 2136, 2137, 2138, 2150, 2169 V. Tartt, 1240, 1242, 1244 Ellwell 1/. Shaw, 1043 Elmendorf v. Carmichael, 2347 V. Lockwood, 734, 793, 835, 896, 900, 901, 911,923 •v. Taylor, 1785 Elmendorff v. Carmichael, 211, 215 Elmer v. Leper. 2087, 2088, 2090 Elmes V. Sutherland, 1794 Elmore v. Marks, 2034 Elms V. Randall, 1220, 1223 El ore z/. Robinson, 2267 Elsee ?». Gatward, 1183, 1191 Elston zi. Jasper, 986 V. Robinson, 1386, 1443, 1444, 1445 Elton V. Eason, 1212 Elwell V. Buruside, 1969 Elwes V. Maw, 118, 124, 127, 12S, 129, 130 Elwood V. Deifendorf, 2177 V. Forkel, 13x7 V. Klock, 819 Ely V. Alcott, 2349 V. Beaumont, 975 V. Eastwood, 1516 7'. Ely, 2009 V. Lyon, 1456 V. McGuire, 2077 V. McNight, 2070 V. Scofield, 2036, 2iog, 2110 If. Wilcox, 2366 Emans v. Turnbull, 98 Emanuel v. Hunt, 2104, 2106 Emanuel College v. Evans, 1996 Embree v. Ellis, 712, 766, 870, 874, 876 Kmbrey -u. Owen, 2225, 2228 Embury v. Connor, 2323, 2324, 2327, 232S Emerick z>. Tavener, 1315 V. Taverner, 1317, 1335, 1350, 1355 Emerson v. Atwater, 2045 V. Cutler, 1024 V. European & M. A. R. Co., 2018, 2019 V. Fiske, 2212 V. Harris, 763 V. Proprietors, 730 V. Simpson, 1867, 1972 V. Spicer, 1022, 1023 7'. White, 2345 V. Wyley, 2362 Emery v. Chase, 2315, 2316, 2317 V. Grocock, 1743 V. Ownings. 2027, 2030 Emigrant Co. v. County of Wright, 1763 Emison v. Risque, 2009 Eramerson v. Heells, 51 Emmert v. Hays, 681 Emmes v. Feeley» 2260 V. Feely, 1171, 1219, 1253, 1294 Emmett v. Emmett, 223, 2014 V. Hays, 1025 Emmons v. Kiger, 1002 V. Littlefield, 2349 V. Newman, 1243 V. Scudder, 12S1, 1348, 1352, 1353 V. Williims, 2334 Emmott V. Cole, 982, 2250 EmonB v. Turnbull, 72 Emory v. Keighan, 2127 V, Wise, 14S6 \ cxx TABLE OF CASES. References are lo pages. Emporia 7). Sodam, 2230 Enders v. Enders, 1648 Enfield v. Day, 212, 2298 Enfield Toll Bridge Co. u. Connecticut River Co., 1869 V. Hartford R. Co., 197 Engelbrecht v. Shade, 1387 Engels V. Mitchell, 1253 England v. Dowes, 654 V. Downs, 659, 795 V. Lewis, 2167 England d. Sybouin v. Slade, 1742, 1743 Engle V. Fitch, 1092 V. Haines, 2068 V. Underbill, 2082 Englebrecht v. Shade, 1419 Englefield's Case, 1544, 1842 Englesz/. McKinley, 1117 English V. Duncan, 2272 V. English, 945, 946 V. Foxall, 1666 V. Key, 1120,2250,2257 V. Lane, 2037 V. Register, 1259 V. Roche, 2024 Englishba w. Helmutb, 207, 601 Eno v. Del Yecchio, 2208, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237 Enos V. Cook, 1046 z». Sutherland, 2038, 2169 Ensign v. Colbum, 10271 2.188 Enthoven i». Hoyle, 2339 Enyeart v. Kepler, 1932, 1945, 1955 Episcopal Charitable Society v. Episcopal Church, 1 020, 104a Eppes z*. Cole, 2270 Epstein f. Greer, 1159, 1213 Equitable Life Assn. Soc. v. Bostwicfc, 2070, 2151 Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Bostwicfc, 2i65 w. Stevens, 2165 Equitable Life Ins, Soc. v. Von Glahn, 2080 Erickson t». Michigan Land & Iron Co., 93, 94 V. Patterson, 1207 V. RafEerty, 1998 V. Willard, 1593, 1629, 3631 Erie V. Cau)kins, 1193 Ernest 1). Ctoysdill, 1761 Erskiner. Plwmmer, 54, 55 v^ Townsend, 2040,2041, 2049, 2077, 2127, 2128 Ervine's Appeal, 2324 Erwin v. Blanks, 2170 V. Clark,, 1246 V. Hurd, 33, 36, 39 V. Olrastead, 12S2, 1903, 192a ». Parham, 175S V. Shuey, 2037 Erwin's App>eal„ 1064 Escheator v. Smith, 1672, 1673 Esdonr. Colbum, 1234 Eskridge t>. McClure, 2005, 2007, 2009 Eslava v. Lepetre, 826, 829, 925, 926 Espy V. Fenton, 2270 Essex V. Atkins, 1562 V. Essex, 1964 Essex Sav. Bfc. v. Meridan F. Ins. Co., 2113 Estabroofc T*. Hughes, 1139 V. Smith, 1094 Estate of Sunderland, 2283 Estate of Wiley, 2263 , 2264 Estave v. Lepetre, 804 Estcourt z/. Estcourt, 953, 955, 957 Estep V. Estep, 1106, 1196 V. Morton, 479 Esterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 1637 Esterly v. Purdy, 2028, 2030 Estes V. Keedsey, 1356 Estill V. Rogers, 594, 595 Estvick's Case, 184 Esty V. Baker, 997, 1253, 1269;^ 1270, 1286, 1293, 1296, 1304, 1354 Etheridge v. Vemoy, 214S Ethridge v. Malempre, 218, 750 Ettenheiraer -v. Hefferman, 221 Etting V. Bank of the United States, 518 Eureka Clothes Wringing Machine Company!'. Bailey W. W. Machine Company, 1042 Eureka Co, v. Bailey Co., 1020 Eustache v. Rodaquest, 220 Eustis V. Keightley, 964 Euston V. Friday, 2133 Evan V. Jayne, 2236 Evans* Estate, 1634, 1733 Evans ly. Erittain, 1883, 1919 V. Chew, 1662, 1752 V. Clapp, 1051, 1052 7'. Evans, 690,691,780,788,815,820, 826, 885, 888 V. Gibbs,. 2354 V. Hardy, 1021, 2257,2258 V. Hastings, 1125, 1310 V. Huffman, 2093, 2094 V. Iglehart, 537 V. Jackson, 1037 V. John, 1786 V. Jones, 2120, 2173 V. Ketterell, 2056 V. Kimball, S09, 8ro V. King, 1609 V. Kingberry, 1364 V. Kingsberry, 76, 77, 1367 V. Lamar, 1794, 2020 V. Montgomery, 1511, 1518 V. Norris, 2031, 2254 V. Pierson, 935 V. Read, 1350 V. Reed, 1355 •v. Roberts, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 537 V, Rosser, 274 V. Webb, 723, 917, 918, 938, 940, 942, 945 f. Webbs, 944 V. Wells, 1042 V. Womack, 13S8 Evans, Doe d., w. Evans, 307 Evansville Gas Light Co. v. State, 2153 Evanturel v. Evanturel, 267 Evarts V. Nason, 1782 V. Steger, 2331 Evelyn v. Raddish, 1091 Evens v. Hardy, 2251 Everett t* . Potter, 733, 734, 736 V. Strong, 2102 Everitt V. Everitt, 1793, 1807 V. Thomas, 2358 Everman &. Robb, 1051, 2020 Everson v.. Carpenter, 2343 Everts w. Beach, 1894 V. Chittendon, 315 Evertson v. Booth, 2105, 2107, 2164 V. Sawyer, 976, 1149 V. Tappen, 802 Evoy V. Tewksbury, 2267 Ewan, Doe d., v. Cox, 412, 415, 423, 427 Ewart V. Smith, logg Ewer z/. Heyden, 1176 •V. Hobbs, 1866, 1998 V. Moyle, 2268 Ewing V. Burnet, 2296 V. City of St. Louis, 1515 r. Coddington, 2254 V. Jones, 1790, 1791 V. Shannahan, 1792 V. Smith, 1375, 1562 V. Wilson, 1789 Ewing's Lessees*. Burnet, 209, 211 Excelsior F. Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 2113, 2117,2118 Exchange & Deposit Bank v. Stone, 1935 Executors of Lord v. Carbon Iron Mfg. Co., 2233 Exeter v. Odiome, 1548, 1560, 1606, 1607 Exeter Bank v. Stowell, 1702 References are to pages. Ex parte Allen, 2263 Ex parte Coburn, 2212 iijr/irtr/tf Duble, 2263 Ex parte Faxon, 2266 Ex parte Hall, 2252 Ex parte Martin, 2324 Ex parte Merriam, 2179, 21S0 Ex Parte Morrish, 2263 Ex parte Withers, 2325 Extension of Central Park, Matter of, 922 Exter V. Odiorne, 297, 299, 300 Exton V. St. John, 820, 821 Exum V, Canty, 2316 Eyre z>. Potter, 1757, 175S Eyrick v. Hetrick, 254, 485, 1674, 1675, 1748, 1786, 1788 Eysaman?'. Eysaman, 1344 Eysterw. GofE, 2153 V. Hatheway, 1409, 1490, 1491, 1497, 1498, 1524, 2060 Eyton V. Jones, 1141 Ezelle V. Parker, 1283, 1291, 2345 F. Fabb V. Archer, 645 Faber w. Police, 1570 Fagan v. Scott, 1282 Fahnestoc^c v. Faustenauer, 1300, 130S, 1315, 1335, 1336 Failing V, Schenck, 981 Fair v. Brown, 2079, 2091 Fairbank v. Cudworth, 2080, 2188 Fairbanks v. Metcalf. 2353 Fairchild %'. Chastelleux, 1024, 1364, 1367, 1930, 1Q31, 1932, 1940. 1941J 1945 V. Fairchild, 824, 1964 7'. Lynch, 2068 Fairfax v. Hunter, 2347 Fairfax's Devisee d. Hunter's Lessee, 214, 215, 236, 672, 673, 1657 Fairfield v. Jeffreys, 1247 V. Lawson, 1685, 1686 Fairis v. Walker, 113 Fairman v. Bavin, 1620 V. Beal, 317, 319, 337, 536, 1815 V. Peck, 1758 Faivre v. Daley, 1467, 146S, 1473, 1474 Falls V. Conway Ins. Co., 2055 Falk V, Turner, 1791 Falkner £». Campbell Printing Press Co., 2064, 2065 Fall V. Hazelregg, 1290 V. Moore, 1133 Fall River Whaling Co. v. Eorden, 824, 1957, i960 Fallon^. Schilling, igS Falls Village W. P. Co. v. Tibbetts, 572 Famworth v. Ferrers, 559 Faming zk Chadwick, 1896, 1903 •v. Dunham, 2060 V. Kerr, 2160 Fansworih v. Cole, 731 Fant V, Cathart, 2343 Fardy v. Williams, 998, 1042 Farewell v. Cuttings, 728 Farley v. Craig, 1004, 1120, 1139, 2251, :267, 2269 V. Farley, 1869 V. Thompson, 2250, 2255, 2258 Farmer v. Francis, 309 V. Grose, 2045, 2047, 2052 V. Ray, 887 V. Rogers, 1160 V. Simpson, 1492, 1497 Tj. Turner, 1428 Farmers' Bank v. Corder, 1937, 1952 V. Duval, 2335 Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Bronson, 2091, 2122 ■i/. Greogory, 1920 TABLE OF CASES. CXXl Farmers & Merchants' Bank of Rochester v. Gregory, 1952, 19S0 Farmers & Merchants' National Bank v. Wal- lace, 1936 Farmers' F. I. & L. Co. v. Edwards, 2131 Fanners' F. & L. Co. v. Edwards, 2129 Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2115 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Carroll, 1550, 1810 V. Commercial Bank, 201S V. Fisher, 2018 V. Hughes, 1662 V. Maltby, 2154 V. McKinney. 2014, 2322 V. St. Jo. & D. R. Co., 98, loig, 1020 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Moran, 1797 Famam v. Brooks, 162 1, 17S1 V. Holman, 2262 V. Loomis, 767 Faniham v. Clements, 1586, 1645 Farnival v. Crew, 1008, 1009 Farnsworlh v. Boston, 688, 2062 V. Duffer, 1045 Famum v, Burnett, 2030, 2059 "'. Loomis. 764 x>. Peterson, 1095, 2301 V. Piatt, 2206, 2208, 2222 Farquharson v. Eichleberger, 289, 1553, 1594, 1597 •V. McDonald, 1600, 1789, 2023 Farr v. Dudley, 2082 V. Gilreath, 298, 1564 V. Sherman, 1362 V. Smith, 1246, 1904, 1905, 1969 Farrand z'. Gleason, iSgi V. Marshall, 2231, 2232 Farrant v. Love], 575, 576, 20S0, 2185 V. Thompson, 984 Farrar v. Ayres. 306, 330, 337, 340 V. Chauffetele, 112, 114, 116, 126, 2334 V. Cooper, 2245 V. Dean, 216 V. Eastman, 1913 V. Stackpole, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 113, 133. 135 V. Winterton, 76 Farrell v. Lloyd, 682, 1647 V. Patterson, 1376 Farrer v. Beswick, 1246 Farrington v. Baley, 2273 V. Barr, 1538, 1586, i6ro, 1612, 1637 V. Kimball, 1072, 1073, 1115, 1117 V. Morgan, 233 Farris v. Houston, 1219, 1222, 2087, 2258 V. Walker, 104, 136 Farrow w. Edmundson, 1144, 1296 V. Farrow, 896, 898, 899, 923, 956 Farrow e v Beam, 841 Farson v. Goodale, 1273, 1334, 1344 Farwell v. Cotting, 925 V. Dickenson, 1176, 2250 V. Murphy, 2174 V. Rogers, 209, 1005, 2256 Farwell Brick, Tile & Clay Shingle Co. v. McKenna, 1464 Fash V. Blake, 2323 v- Kavanagh, 1343 Fassett v. First Parish in Baylston, 36, 38, 39, 40 V. Mullock, 2106. 2153 Fassitt V. Middleton, 975 Faubanks v. Codworth, 2081 Faulkner w. Anderson, 1253 V. Brock en borough, 1998, 2077 V. Dmiel, 510 V. Daniels, 2170 V. Davis, 1738, 1739 V. Warren, 2251 Faure v, Winans, 2089 Faurote v. Carr, 1427, 1428 Fawcett v. Whitehouse, 1621 Fawcetts z/. Kinney, 2177 cxxu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Fawley v. Craig, 2253. Faxon, Ex Parte, 1173 V. Folvey, 1589 Fay w. Brewfer, 553, 563, 1153, 2086 1). Cheney, 688, 1996, 2014 V. Fay, 1605, 1810 V. HoUoran, 984, 2249, 2252, 2259 ZK Muzzey, 78, 79 V. Salem & D. Aqueduct Co., 71 ■u. Taft, 1560, 1614 V. Valentine, 2174 Faysoux ff. Prather, 1723 Fearoti v. Aylesford, 773, 939, 965 Fears w. Brooks, 1371, 1373, 1561 Feather v. Strohoecker, 1989, 1990 Featherstonhaugh v. Lee Moor Porcelain Clay Co., roig V. Bradshaw, 2271 Fee V. Swingly, 2085 Fejavary v. Braesch, 1050, 2271 Felch V. Finch, 841, 844 &. Harriman, 1207 V. Hooper, 1614 V. Taylor, 1108, 1117, 2062 Fell V. Brown, 2073, 2149 V. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co., 976 Fellows' Appeal, 1791, 1792 Fellows V. Fellows, 1770 V. Heermans, 1680 V. Lee, 197 V. Lewis, 1480 V. Mitchell, 1732 V. Smith, 1623 v. Tann, 1561 Felthouse v. Bi'idley, 1000 Feltman v. Butts, 293 Felton V. Bissell, 2177 V, Deall, 982, 1232 Fenn v. Holme, 1516 V. Smart, 1849 Fennings v. Granville, 1246 Fenny n. Durrant, 862 Fenton v. Emblers, g6i V. Holloway, 1034 z'. Lord, 2o58 V. Reed, 506, 752, 757, 758, 769, 883 V. Stump, 759 Fenwick z/. Floyd, 1501 Fereday v. HorderU; 1240 Ferguson v. , 1068 v, Cornish, 1007, 1008 V. Franklin, 1554 V. Hardy, 2257 V. Hass, 786 V. Kimball, 2154 V. Kumler, 1431 11. Neville, 2014 •v. Peden, 2298 •V. Reed, 1425 V. Stuart's Exrs., 76' V. Tweedy, 592, 593, 598, 6or, 604, 616, 624, 692, 693, 703 V. Wetsell, 2248 V. WLtsell, 2242 Ferguson's Lessee v. Zepp, 307, 308, 332, 536 Fergusson v. Brent, 1099 Ferfat v. Gojon, 594 Ferraby v. Hobson, 1038 Ferrall v. Kent, 1233, 1234, igog Ferre v. American Board Comrs., etc., 1842 Ferriu v. Kennedy, 1294 V. Kenny, 1293 Ferris w. Cooper, 2335, 2336 V. Crawford, 2070, 2071, 2112. 2150, 2166 V. Ferris. 2051 V. Gibson, 322, 323 V. Quimby, 123 V. Van Buskiric, 2237 V. Van Vechten, 1622, 1760 Ferriss v. Harshea, 730 Ferry v. Bnrnell, 739 V. Meckert, 2107 Ferry v. Pumell, 733 Fesmire v. Brock, 1026 Fessler's Appeal, 2002, 2050 Fetrie v. Shoemaker, 1034 Fetrow v. Merriwether, 2318 V. Wiseman, 2344 Fetters v. Humphrey, 2211 V. Humphreys, 2216 Fettiplace v. Gorges, 1562 Fewell V. Kessler, 2134 Fickett V. Durham, 778 Field V. Arrowsmith, 1598, 1716, 1766, 1795 V. Columbet, 2322 V. Craig, 1904 «». "Helms, 2168 V, Herrick, 1030, 1066, 13 16, 1327, 1329, 1340 V. HoUowell, 970 •v. Howell, 971, 974, gSi V, Mayor, etc., of New York, 2017 V. Mills, 1057, 1104, iiii, 1113, 1159 V. Pierce, 42 V. Schiefflin, 1022 V. Stagg, 2341 V. Swan, 1 1 19, 2065, 2257 Fielden v. Slater, 1185 Fielder zk Darrin, 2045, 2060 V. Murphy, 2152 Fields V. Fields, 1953 Fiero zk Belt, 1229, 1234 Fify Assoc, v. Howland, 1059, 1062, 1138, 1155 Figart v. Halderman, 2071 Fightmaster v. Beasley, 1969 V. Beasly, 1905 Filbert v. Hoff, 1904 Files V. Magoon, 1277 Fillebrown v. Hoar, 1171, T173, 1174, 2268 Filley -v'. Register, 1623, 1625, 1626 FilUter v, Phippard, 568 Fillman v. Divers, 1622 Fillor V. United States, 1035 Finaly v. King's Lessee, 1864 Finch's Case, 1348 Finch 11. Finch, 650, 962, 966, 1647, 1653 V. Miller, 1316 z'. Newham, 2170 V, Shackleford, 1153 Finden v. Stephens, 1627 Fiudlay v. Smith, 340, 495, 544, 550, 552, 553, 561, 562, 742, 776, 806, 812 Findlay's Kxrs. v, Findlay, 899 Findley v. Findley, 933, 956 V. Wilson, 1668 Finlay r/. King's Lessee, 270, 305, 1770 Finlayson v. Finlayson, 1586, 1616 Finley z). Diedrick, 1388, 1513 V. Dietrick. 1390 V. McConnell, 1381, 1476 V. United States Bank, 2147, 2148 Finklemeier z*. Bales, 11 59 Finney v. Cochran, 1782 zi. Watkins, 128 Finney's Trustees v. St. Louis, 1131, 1315, 1316, 1348 Fipps V. McGehee, 2364 Fiquet v. Allison, 1234, 1246 Firchburg Cotton Manf. Co. v. Melven, 1028 Fire Ins. Patrol v. Boyd, 1751 Firebrass v. Pennant, 646 Firestone v. Firestone, 764, 804, 827, 832 First Baptist Church v. Bigelow, 31 First Baptist Society zk Grant, 33, 36 First Baptist Church of Hartford v. Witherell, 33. 35.36. 39 First Congregational Society v. Atwater, 1555 First Methodist Episcopal Society v. Brayton, 37 First Natl. Bank v. Bennett, 975 V. Hughes, 1795 V. Vevay, 1316 First National Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Bruse, 1421, 1447 References are to pages. .1 TABLE OF CASES. cx^m First National Bank of Santa Barbara v. La Suerra. 1425 First National Bank of Sioux City v. Gage, 2066 First National Bank of Stewart v. Holling- worth, 13S3, 1443, 1445 Fii-st National Bank of Waterloo v. Elmore, 810 First Parish in Brunswick ?'. Dunning, 234 First Parish of Sudbury r'. Jones, 142 First Presby. Church's Lessee v. Pickett, 1139, 1140 Firat Presbyterian Society of Chili v. Bowen, 1671 Firit Religious Society in Whitestown v. Stone, 1671 Fish i'. Chapman, logg v. Dodge, 119^,2070 V. Fish, 783, 940, 2074, 2182 V. Howland, 2008 V. Potts, 2257 V. Wilson, 1782 Fishbach v. Lane, 1469 Fisher's Appeal, 162 1 Fisherz'. Banta, 76 V, Brown, 1749 V. Bush, 1211 V. Cornell, 1443, 1445, 1459, 1462 V. I>erring, 1120, 2258 V. Dewerson, 1972 V, Dixon, 104, 127 V. Fair, 2218 V. Fields, 288, 289, 290, 1542, 1563, 1574, ^575> *592, 1594, 1596,1689,1690,1691, 1796 jr. Filbert, 1561 V. Fislier, 102 1 V. Forbes, 53, 724, 959 V. Glover, 32, 39 V. Grimes, 784, 821, 907 V. Horicon, etc., Co., 1554 V. Johnson, 2005, 2007 V. Jewitt, 2343 zi. Klein, 2347 V. Krutz, 1643 V. Lackey, 151 1 7'. Meister, 2059, 2147 V. MiDiken, 1098, 1172 V. Morgan, 874, 875 71. Mossman, 924 r. Otis, 202S, 2105, 210S V. Prosser, 1170 7/. Provin, 1024, 1930, 1932, 1942, 1952 V. Smith, 1151, 2256 V. Tallman, 2169 V. Taylor, 273, 500, 1674, 1675, 174S V. Thirkell, 1202 V. Wigg, 1246, 1883 Fisher, Doe d., z>. Giles,. 1279 V. Prosser, 518 Fisk V. Chandler, 1866 V, Eastman, 692, 703, 761, 815 Fiske V. Fiske, 2031, 2032, 2033 z/. Flores, 2359 V. Tolman, 2068 Fitch v. Archibald, 2254 V. Ayer, 647 V. Burk, 2020 V. Cotheal, 2131 V. Harrington, 1241 7/. Pinckard, 1997 V. Renner, 2057 Fitchburg Cotton Co. v. Melvin, 2064 Fitchburg Cotton Manfg. Corp. v. Melvin, 119, 497, 1127, 1167, 1171, 1172, 1174 Fitchburg R. Co. v. Page, 2295 Fitcher v. Remer, 2057 Fite V. Beasley, 1686 Fitton V. Inhabitants of Hamilton City, 1043, 1317, 1328, 1342 Fitts V. Fitts, 1949 V. Hoitt, 70S, 729, 1093 Fitz V. Smallbrook, 1807 Fitzgerald v. Anderson, 1187, n8S V. Barker, 2068, 2166 7>. Beebe, 1125, 1169^1212 V. Fernandez, 1426 7J. Foulkes, 2272 V. Reed, 986 V. Topping, 1798 Fitzlierbert v. Shaw, 130 Fitzhugb V, Anderson, 2176 V. Barnard, 1777 V. Cregham, 2364 V. Crigham, 5 1 7 V. Croghan, 206, 601, 73*^ 2354, 2365 V. Hellen, 486 Fitzpatrick v. Childs, 1131, 1132 V. Fitzgerald, 1706, 1707, 1713 V. Fitzpatrick, 597, 1648 V. Waring. 1038 Fitzsimmons v. Ogden, 2124 Flacks f. Kelly, 2136 Fladland v. Delaplaine, 2000 Fladung zr. Rose, 1919, 1932, 1939 Flagg V. Bean, 641, 642,666 V. Ely, 171 5 V. Geltmacker, 2071 V. Mann, 1590, 1738, 1990, iggs, 2037, 2041, 2043, 2044, 2045,2046, 2048,2049 2053, 2054, 2064, 2079, 2204, 232S Flaherty v. McCormick, 2296 Flanagan v. Glanagan, 75 v. Pearson, 1144, 1145, 1160 7/. WeStCOtt, 2112 Flanders?'. Clark, 1816, 1841, 1888 V. Flanders, 1776 71. Lamphear, 2032, 2033, 2064 V. Thompson, 1623 Fleek v. Zilhaver, 1933 Fleeson ?'. Nicholson, 831, 8gi, 927 Fleet V. Borland, 504, 505, 506 Fleetwood v. Hull, T076 Fleming 7/. Brush, 2356 v. Buchanan, 1821, 1825 V. Chunn, 2252, 2259 V. Fleming, 597 77. Gilmer, 17S4 7'. Sitton, 2165 Flemming v. Culbert, 1781 Fletcher 7/. Ashburner, 94, 679, 695 11. Ashley, 654 7'. Chase, 2097, 2178 7>. Com. Ins. Co., 1224 V. Fletcher, 1791 V. Herring, 8r 7/. Holmes, 722, 924, 1999, 2106, 2167 7>. Mayor, 2100 V. McFarlane, 1076,2263, 2264 v. Peck, 19, 1512 7'. Rylands, 199 z>. Smiton, 307, 311 V. State Bank, 1093 7/. State Capitol Bank, 1412, 1501 V. Thunder Bay River Boom Co., 70 V. Walker, 1720 Fletcher v. Dyche, 2356 Fleureau v. Thornhill, 1245 Flinn v. McKinley, 1990 Flint 7/. Clinton Co., 1786, 17SS, 2013 V. Hughes, 347. 1632, 16S4 tr. Phipps, 2033 V. Sheldon, 2038, 2046 Flint & P. M. R Co. v. Gordon, 2203 Flinthan's Appeal, 33S, 1814 Flinthan's Case, 317 Flood V. Blood, 1348, 1354 Florence 7/. Adams, 1766, 1776 7/. Hopkins, 1917, 1982, Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Grovor & Baker Sewing Machine Co., 1157 Florentine 7'. Barton, 2333 Flournoy v. Johnson, 1743 Flowers z;. Elwood, 2133, 2161 CXXIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Flower, Doe d., v. Peck, 1074," 1075, 1152, 1868, i86g Flower v. Miller, 1380, 1381 Flowry v. Befiker, 662 Floyd V. Calvert, 596 V. Carow, 21 V. Floyd, 1300, 1308, 1335, 1337 •a. Morrow, 2018 V. Ricks, 45, 2364 Floper V. Lavington, 2168 Fludz/. Flud. 518 Fluke V. Fluke, 1754, 1810 Flureau v. Thomhill, iigo Flyz'. Brooks, 2331 Flynn v. Coffee, 523 V. Hatton, 1054, 1086, 1248 ■v. Powers, 20 11 Fl'ynt w. Arnold, 829, 2365 V. Conrad, 48 'V. Hubbard, 1647, 2080 Fojal w. Pino, 514 I'ogarty z'. Finley, 2364 V. Sawyer, 2078, 2159 Fo^ 1/. Clark, 2, 305. 307, 308, 310, 331 V. Fogg, 1386, 1442, 1443, 1501, 1502, 1503, V. Price, 1053, 1093 Fogle v. Chancy, 1309 Folden v. State, 970, ggo, looi Foley w. Cooper, 1524 V. Cowgill, 1701 ff. Howard, 2033, ■V. Parry, 347 ■V. Perry, 1630 ■V. Wyeth, 1253, 12S2, 1290, 2231, 2232, 2248 Folger k. Evic, 1638 V. Kenuer, no 27. Mitchell, 2191 Folkingham v. Croft, 257 Follansbez'. Kilbreth, 1735, 1736, 1746 FoUett V. Heath, 2027. 2031 V. Rose, 1757 V. Tyrer, 684, 1372 Folschow V. Werner. 1427 Folsom ». Belknap Co. Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2115 p. Carli, 1445, 1504, 1505 V, Chesley, 541 v. Moore, 107, 1269 V Perriii, 994 Folts V. Huntley, 1127, 1167 Foltz -v. Prouce, 2250, 2251, 2258 Fonda w. Sage, 1861, 1862, 1873 V. Van Home, 1023, 2344 Fontatn v. Ravenel, 2348 Fontaine -v, Bostman's Sav. Bank, 765 Fonte V. Horton, 1734 Fooler «/. Cooke, 1729 Foos V. Scarf, 1822 Foose -D. Whitmore, 1591, 1593 Foot V. New Haven & N. Co., 1280, 2212, 2213 0. New Haven R. R., 2212 zi. Tewksbury, 1033 V. Wiswall, 517 Foote V. Bryant, 1615 V. Cincinnatti, 1127, 1129, 1167,2268 71. Colvin, 45, 1229, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1579, 1615, 1622, 1638, 1642, 1648, 1747 •V. Gooch, 132 V. Hartford Ins. Co., 2116 Footner v. Cooper, 2, 307 Forbes v. Appleton, iiSo V. Balenseifer, 2212, 2213 7j. Eden, 34 v. Forbes, 1947 z/. Hall, 1 74 1 V. McCoy, 2025, 2026 'V. Moffatt, 810, 1164, 1580, 2097 V. Ross, 1708 V. Scannell, 1795 V. Smiley, 1258, 1273, 3260 Forbes v. Smith, 679, "680 V. Sweezy, 592, 628, 634, 635, 668, 669 Forbush v. Lombard, 2021 Ford z/. Conb, 61, 81, no, 117, 122, 125, 141, i43» 144 V. Cook, 447, 448, 468 ■u. Erskine, 867, 868 V. Gray, 1913 V. Grey, 208, 1968 zi. Irskine, 807 2/. Johnson, 1514 z). Joyce, 2330 V. Kiiapp, 1891, 1892 V. Lacy, 2293 %K Peering, 491 V. Phillips, 1031 V. Philpot, 782 z'. Smith, 2005, 2009 V. Tynte, 60 ZK Williams, 141 V. Wilson, 2300 Forde v. Herron, 1962 Fordyce zk Hicks, 1425 V. Willis, 1590 Foreman 7'. Foreman, 94, 434 Forgy ZI. Merryman, 2071 Fornshill v. Murray, 752, 757, 759 Forrer t. Forrer, 1S89 Forrest z>. Foirest, 771. 772, 920, 1359 V. Tremmell, 764, 766 Forrester v. Forrester, 750 Forsaith v. Clark, 310 Forsey v. Luton, 497 Forshaw v. Higginson, 1787 V. Welsby, j8oi Forster z/. Hale, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1691, 1692 Forsyth -v. Preer, 1479 Forsythe v. Price, 539, 540, 1208 Fort V. Burch, 799, 2365 Fortesque zi. Hennah, 795 Forth V. Ballance, 1146 Fortier v. Darst, 2106 Fortman v. Goepper, 116, 143, 144 Forward z>. Deetz, 1914 V. Pittard, 498, 1099 Fescue ZK Foscue, 1781 Fosdick V. Fosdick, 323 V. Gooding, 791, 851, 857, 870 V. Schall, 2018 V. Southern Car Co., 2018 Foss V. Crisp, 659, 660, 673, 674, 750, 20T4 z). Hildreth, 1033 V. Strachn, 1383, 1449, 1451, 1455 V. Van Driele, ii6g, 1170, 2258 Foster's Appeal, 75, 1961 Foster v. Abbott, 2092 V. Atwatev, 2068 V. Beals, 2 no V. Browning, 2212, 2213 V. Byrne, 1428 V. Cook, 943 V. Davis, 1724, 1728 ZI. Dawber, 1788 V. Deacon, 2152 •V. Dugan, 1349 V. Dwinell. 764, 803, 827 V. Equitable Ins. Co., 2118 z). Foster, 1412, 1910 7). Groton, 735 V. Hall, 636 v. Hawley, 759 V. Hilliard, 509, 2182 V. Joyce, 285, 477, 532 •V. Mansfield, 2353 V. McGregor, 1481 ZK Marshal, 489, 589, 590, 624, 626, 630, 632, 666 v> Maybe, 144 V. Merchant, 1034 V. Morris, 1172, 1220 V. Peyser, 1054, 1066, 1067, 1081, 1175, 1200, 1201 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxxv Foster v. Potter, 2164 V. Prentiss, 142 V. Reynolds, 2030 V, Robinson, 1209 V. Romney, 1564 V. Rowland, 999 V. Shreve, 534 V. Stewart, 2, 30S, 309 V. The Essex Bank, 2332 V. Trustees, 1652 V. Trustees of Athenseum, 2007 z*. Van Reed, 21 17 V. Westmoreland, 2272 Foster, Doe d., v. Wandlass, 1060 V. Williams, 1309 Foteaux w. Lepage, 2251, 225S Fothergill v. Fothergill, 1839 Fouch V. Wilson, 2004, 2037 Foucher J', Leeds, 1316 Fougerar'. Cohu, 1300, 13 17, 1321, 1335, 1442 Foulk V. McFarlane, 1773 Foulkes, Succession of, 1497 Fountaine v. Pellett, 504, 1726 Fourth Ecclesiastical Society v. Mather, 647 Fowell V. Franter, 1007 Fowke V. Slaughter, 1650 11. Woodward, 1047 Fowle V. Lawrason, 1669 V. Torrey, 646 Fowler, In re-, 2260 V. ^tna Fire Ins. Co., 21 15 V. Bailey, 786, 825 V. Bailley, 1957 V. Bott, 1082, 1099, 1175, 1179, 2250 V. Bush, 2133 7'. Fay, 810, 2068 V. Fowler, 661, 1604, 1687, 1891 V. Griffin, 739, 740, 780, 856 7'. Hawkins, 2272 z'. Payne, 1099, 1100 V. Poling, 1 172 V. Shearer, 900 V. Stoneum, 2046 V. Thayer, 1878 V. Treboin, 647 Fowler, Doe d., v. Peck, 1074, 1075 Fowley v. Palmer, 2089 Fox V. Blossom, 2293 V. Carlyne, 1848 V. Cash, 1781 V. Corey, 970, 2257, 2263 V. Fletcher, 1887, 1919, 1932 V. Hanbury, 1246 V. Lipe, 2060 V. Long, 504, 520 V. Mackreth, 76, 1619, 1621, 1761, 1772 V. Nathans. 1006, 1320 V. Phelps, 289, 331, 332, 340, 342, 533, 536 V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 2113, 2117 V. Pratt, 803, 885, 21G4 &. Southack, 214, 215,672, 673,750, 774, 1657, 2014 V. Swann, 1250 Foxcroft V. Barnes, 1983 Foxton V. Manchester & Liverpool District Banking Company, 1783 Foxwell V. Craddock, 223 Foxworth V. White, 760 , Foy V. Foy, 1590 Frail v. Ellis, 2006 Frakes v. Elliott, 1904 Frame v. Frame, 1589 Framptgn v. Stephens, 770 France's Estate, 210 France v. Harrow, 722 Francestown v. Deering, 1646 Francis' Appeal, 2242 Francis The, 1456 Francis v. Cockrell, 1054, 1055 V. Francis, 597 V. (larrarJ, 841, 844 V. Nash, 43 Francis v. Porter, 1999, 2140, 2141 V. Sayles, 1211 V. Wells, 2004 Franciscus v. Reigart, 58, 251, 1552, 1559, 1583, 1672, 1673 Frank's Appeal, 959 Frank v. Brunnemann, 1184 V. Davis, 2167 V. Murphy, 2171 V. McGuire, 2263, 2264 V. Stovin, 424 Franke v. Youmans, iiio Frankland v. Moultob, 143 Franklin v. Brown, 1054, 1056, 1066 z'. Carter, 11 72 V, Coffee, 1378, 1379, 1380, 13S6, 1416, 1439, 1442, 1443, 1444, 14^5, 1457, 1458, 14S3, 1495, 1514 V. Gorham, 2074 V. Harier, 331 V. McEntyre, 1613, 1651 V. Merida, 1212 V. Osgood, 1663, 1731, i8£o, i8i3» 1814, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1S41, 1842, 1S43 V. Palmer, 1164 V. Robinson, 1889 V. Thombury, 985 Franklin Land, etc., Co. v. Card, 1130, 1131 Franklin Sav. Inst. v. Central Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2119 Franklin Savings Institution v. People's Sav- ings Bank, 1885 Franklyn, Ex parte, 1721 Franklyn v, Hayward, 2147 Frary v. Booth, 1373, 1374, 1562 Fraser z'. Davie, 2255 V. Davis, 2273 Frasur v. Hurey, 536 Fratt V. Whittier, 105, 106, 107, 108, 121, 135, 136, 138, 141 Fraunces' Case, 1867 Fray v. Packer, 281, 285 Frazer v. Hightower, 655, 677, G82, 683, 1372 V. HilHard, 2017 V. McPherson, 2314 V. Pigott, 2281 V. Robinson, 1213 Frazier ?'. Bamum, 254, 1747 V. Brown, 2226, 2230 V. Brownlow, 1373, 1562 7'. Frazier, 1671 V. Pankey, 2333 Frazier, Trustees of, v. Center, 766, 830 Freak v. Hearsey, 2148 Frear v. Drinker, 2095 V. Hardenburgh, 52 Frederick's Appeal, 1790 Frederick v. Devol, 142, 143 V. Gray, 1915 V. Haas, 1700 V. Youngblood, 1698 Freeborn v. Wagner, 1808, i8og Freedland v. Manderville, 955 Freeholders v. Henry, i68g Freeland v. Burt, 1176 V. Freeland, 2059 V. Harris, 2064 V. Southworth, 107, iii Freeman v. Baldwin, 2038 V. Barber, 1951 V. Buniham, 1623 V. Carpenter, 15141 ^S'S V. Coit, 345 V. Cooke, 1707 21. Dawson, 77 V. Dunn, 658, 669 V. Foster, 1094 V. Freeman, 1696 7'. Hartmen, 588, 658, 669, 1362, 1377 V. Headly, 1259, 1277, 12S2, 1292 V. Howe, 1516 CXXVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages, Freeman. 7/, Kelly, 1634, 1653 V. McGaw, 809, 2016 V. Ogden, 1317 V. Parsley, 1828 v. Peay, 2033 V. Schofield, 2148 V. Schroeder, 2125 V. Smith, 76 V. Underwood, 982, 9S3 V. West, 1040 V. Wilson, 2045, 2054 Freeman, Den exd,, v. Heath, 1160 Freemantle v. Bankes, 648 Freer v. Lake, 1690, 2096 V. Stotenbur, St2, 1204. 1227 Freerez'. Moore. 2139 Freethy v. Freetixy, 1514 Fregonwell z>. Sydenham, 1692 Freidlander v. Ryder, 1187 Freidly v. Scheetz, S89 Freligh v, Piatt, 31, 35, 36, 38, 40 Fremont v. The United States, 88 Frenqh zr. Braintree Manf. Co., 2247 V. Brewer, 88 V. Bums, 2046 V. Cadden,4i8 V. Crosby, S64. 911 v. Edivards, 1800, 1801 ■v. Freeman, 79, 81 V. Frencli. 297, 534, 1548, 2319, 2321 ■V. Fulier,'i2S2 •V. Hatch, 319 V. Hobson, 1733 ■V. Lord, 796, S13, 821, 828, gii, 921, 922 i>. Lund, 1925 V. Macale, 1872 V. Marstin, 2219, 2220 iv. Mayor, 1 106 V. Mcllhenny, 302, 306, 309, 331, 333 V. Mehan, 1920, 1933, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1945 V. Pearce, 210, 211, 2298 z>. Peters, 854, 860, 900, 904 V. Pratt, 849, 854, 856, 859, 860 V. Rollins, 515, 665, 666, 1142 V. Sturdivant, 2038, 2052, 2054 V. Turner, 2104, 2106 Frenches Heirs v. French, 1033 Frewen v. Relfe, 1888 Frey v. Rockfellcr, 2364 V. Vanderhoof, 2131 Freyvogle v. Hughes, 1674, 1675 Frick Co. v. Petals, 1380, 1381 Friedhoif ■z'. Smith, 996, 1322 Friedland v. Johnson, 1712, 1761 Friedlander z/. Ryder, 1188 Friedly v. Hamilton, 2042, 2119, 2126 Friend v, Garcelon, 1428, 1429 Friendly 7/. Sheetz, 1773 Frier v. Jacksou ex. d. Van Allen, 518 Frierson ?/. Blan*on, 2066, 2067 V. Frierson, 647 7>. Williams, 720 Frieze w. Chapin, 2160 Frink v. Branch, 2027 z/. Le Roy, 2175 V. Murphy, 21^1 Frisbie ?'. Fogarty, 2155 v. Price, 1271, 1280, 1289 V. Whitney, 2308 Frissell 7'. Rosier, 646, 647, 895, 1938 Frith, In re, i66g, 1974 Frische v. Kramer's Lessee, 2078 Frogmorton v. Holday, 331 «7. Wharrey, 234,437 V. Wright, 331, 533 Frogmorton d, Fleming z*. Scott, 1352 Frogmorton d. Robinson v. Wharrey, 442 Frontier z*. Ballance, 1140 Frontin v. Small, 1989 Fronty v. Wood, 1132, 1317 Frosdick zr. Sterling, 1366, 1369, 1370 Frost V. Reekman, 1777, 2038, 2121, 2122, 2123 Frost V, Brisbin, 1456 z*. Butler, 1859 V. Cloutman, 470 V. Crisp, 2025 V. Deerjng, 901, 903 V. Earnest, 1067 V. Frost, 2150 V. Peacock, 818, 925 z/. Raymond, 1989, 2362 V. Shaw, 2071, 2112 V. Wolf, i960 V. Yonkers Savings Bank, 2138, 2172 Frothingham v. McKusick, 2186, 2187 Front V. Hardin, 1230 Fry V. Fry, 636 V. Jones, 1230, 1237, 2255 V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 858 V. Sliehee, 2146 V. Smith, 336 Fryatt v. Sullivan, 2186 V. The Sullivan Co., 103, 104, 143 Frye v. Bank of Illinois, 2030 V. Porter, 1692 Fryer, In re, 1732 Fryer v. Fryer, 596, 752 Fudge V. Durn, 1713, 1714, 1723* 1728 Fuhr z/. Dean, 1356, 1357, 2212, 2240 V. Deane, 2213 Fullas V. Pierce, 2366 Fullenwider 7^. Watson, 1821 Fuller V. Ferguson, 1946 V. Fuller, 1889 V. Hodgdon, 2079 V. Hodgson, 2091 z'. Hunt, 2068, 2069 V. Parish, 2045, 2050 V. Ruby, 1128, 1168, 1172, 1173, 1174 z'. Scribner, 2152 V. Sweet, 999, 1275, 1281, 1307, 1319 V. Swett, 1171, 1172 z/. Tabor, it6, 123 z'. Tates, 535 %K Wason, 541, 542, 543, 545, 546, 724 V. Watson, 807 V. Wright, 730 V. Yates, 917, 918, 942, 944, 965 V. Young, 2251, 2258 Fulmer v. Williams, 199 Fulthrope v. Foster, 2010 Fulton V. Davidson, 1735 V. Hood, 136 V. Johnson, 603 V. Norton, 103, no V. Stewart, 1139 V, Stuart, 1112, III5' Fulwiler ?'. Infield, 1428 Fulwood's Case, 723 Funk V. Brigaldi, 112 ■V. Creswell, 2321 z/. Eggleslon. 319, 337, 340, 1806, 1836, 1837 V. Halderman, 1973, 2189 z'. McReynolds V. Newcomer, iggo, 2301 V. Walter, 1522 Funk's Lessee v. Kincaid, 1120, 1213 Furbish v. Sears, 2032 Furbush z*. Goodwin, 2077, 2084, 2103, 2104, ^ , 2147 Furlong f. Leary, 1273 Furmanz/. Coe, 1725, 172S V. Fisher, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1786, 17S9, 1790, 1795 zf. Johnson, 2263 V. McMillan, 1890 Furnas v. Durgin, 2069 Furrow z*. Athey, 1469 Fusselman v. Worthington, 1144, 1296 Fyffe V, Beers, 1422, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1465, 1466, 149s Ileferences are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxxvu G. Gabbert v. Schwartz, 2106 Gable v. Daub, 402 V. Miller, 34 Gadberry v. Shspard, 261 V. Sheppard, 1855, 1857. i860, 1867 Gadd:ird v. Bolster, 2186 Gadsden v. Cappedeville, 1797 w. Whaley. 1587, 1592 GafEee^s Trust, /« re, 1561 Gaffee v. Caffee, 1361 Gaffield v. Hapgood, 115, iiS, 119, 128, 129, 130, 144. 145, 146, 1187 Gafford v. Steams, 1909 Gagare/. Eckert, 746 Gage V. Bates, 1154 V. Brewster, 2158, 2172 V. Jenkinsoii, 2166 V. Sleinkrauss, 71 V, Ward, 765, 766 Gaillard v. Parcher, 645 Gaines v. Chew, 1609, 1662 V. Gaines' Exrs. & Heirs, 821, 822 V. Green Pond Iron Mining Co., 494, 495, 496, 812 zf. Relf, 770 z/. Walker, 722 z>. Wilson, 736 Gains z'. Poor, 647 Gaiaus !7. Cannon, 1417 Galbraith v. Galbrailh, 18S3 v. Gedge, 786, 1963 V. Greene, 711, 759, 760 Gale V. Cobum, 2317, 2319 V. Edwards, 2250 V. Gale, 15S6, 1645 v. Hiues, 1903 7f. Kinzie, 776, 844 V. Mensing, 1777, 1794 V. Morris, 2001 z>. Nixon, 1063 V. Oil Run Petroleum Co., 1145 V. Ward, 105, 108, 112, 114, 116, 126, 133 Galena & Chic. U. R. R. Co. v. Jacobs, 1288 Gallagher v. Mars, 2004 V. Shipley, 78, 79, So V. Waring, iigg Gallaher 7/. Herbert, 1157 Gallatin Co. v. Beattie, 2063 Gallego's Exr. v. Attorney-General, 1684 Gallego V. Chevallie, 636 Galleo V. Eagle, 1980 Galliers 21. Moss, 1552, 1554, 2084 Galligherz/. Smiley, 1381, 1384, iSH Galligo V. Chevallie, 635 Gallop V. Newman, 1240 Galloway v. Bonesteel, 2241 V. Finley, 1617, 2304 1/. Herbert, 1284 V. Kerby, 1316 Galloway, Lessee of, v. Ogle, 1213 Gait V. Dibreil, 1712, 1795 V. Dibsell, 2366 V. Jackson, 2054 Galusha 7/. Sinclear, i8gi Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 2018, 2019 Galway v. Fuilerton, 2107, 2152 Gambette v. Brook, 1416, 1460 Gamble's Estate, 616 Gamble, Succession of, 31, 32 Gamble v. Voll, 2171 Gambril v. Gambril. 515 7J. Doe ex d. Rose, 281, 284 Gamhill v. Newby, 1904 Gammis v. Clark, 2362 Gammon zr. Freeman, 2357 V. Vernon, 1072 Gandy v, Jubber, 1300 Ganet z'. Hall, 2316 Gangwere's Estate, In re, 899 Gangwere v. Gangwere, 957 Gann vl Chester, 2007 Gannaway v. Tarpley, 760 Gannon v. Freeman, 7G4 zi. Nowell, 355 Gano V. Vanderveer, 994, 1081 Gans z'. Thieme, 2101 Ganseii v. Tomlinson, 2101 Ganter v. Atkinson, 1320 Gantley's Lessee v. Ewing, 1511 Gantz V. Toles, 2172 Garaty v. Dubois, 1394, 1421, 1422 Garber v. Henry, 2120 Garbut v. Bowlin, 8g6 Gardeline v. Michel, 2336 Gardener v. Finley, 47 Gardenhire v. Hinds, 1797 Gardiner?'. Astor, 2097, 2098 V. Corson, 1063 z'. Derring, 541, 544, 546, 557 z/. Painter, 1626 Gardiner Mfg. Co. v. Heald, 1976 Gardinier z>. Corson, 2362 Gardner t. Astor, 2095, 2097 V. Barnes, 1093, 20S3 V. Bennett, 1194, 1195 V. Board of County Commissioners, 1131, 1133, »f34. i'35 ' v. Collins, 22S6 V. Commissioners of Dakota Co., 13)3, 1315. i3'6 z;. Corson, 1S55 v. Emerson, 2136 v. Finley, 2022 V. Gardner, 1044, 1562, 1580 V. Green, 761, 815 z'. Hazleton, ggg, 1283, 1305 v. Heartt, 800, 2186 V. Heyer, 2281 z/. Hoeg, 2020 V. Hooper, 634 V. James, 2134 z>. Keteltas, 978, 1079, 1128, 1201 V. Klutts, 617 V. Moore, 1485, 2038 V. Newburgh, 2224 V. Ogden, 1621 Garesche v. Priest, 1719 Garfield v. Crow, 417 V. Hatmaker, 768, 1548, 1559 V. Williams, 1093 Gariss V. Gariss, 1292 Garit v. Chambers, 69 Garland v. Executors of Crow, 480, 519 V. Garland, 1677, 1678, 1679 V. Jackson, 1037 V. Richeson, 2105 V. Towne, 198 z/. Wynn, 2307 Garlick v. Strong, 708, 726 Gamer v. Bond, 1503 V. Byard, 2263 V. Garner, i6og V. Hannah, 1059, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1152, 1157, 1158 V. Jones, 1920, 1932, 1952 z/. Manhattan Building Assoc, 1140, 1141, 1158 Gamett v. Macon, 1758 Gamhart z'. Finney, 1058, 1086, 1155, 1156 Gamons, Doe ex d., v. Knight, 1786 Garnsey v. Mundy, 1609, 1791, 1792, 1793 ?'. Rogers, 2070, 2072 Garrard v. Garrard, 956 7/. Lauderdale, 1713, 1793 V. Tuck, 1261 Garraud, Jie Estate of, 1648 Garretsie zi. Van Ness, 498 Garretson v. Brien, 734, 741 Garrett's Appeal, 1509 Garrett z/. Beaumont, 671 V. Buckett, 2106 CXXVIU TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Gairett tt. Cheshire, 1380, 1510, 1512, 1518 V. Clark, 531, 130S, 1320, 1335 V. Cummins, 116G V. Moss, 909 z/. Sconten, 1873 Garrison, Re^ 856, 859, 860 Garrison v. Moore, 59 V. Rudd, 2217 V. Sandford, 1093 Garritt v. Sharpe, 2218, 2220, 2246, 2247 Garson v. Green, 2005, 2006 Garth v. Baldwin, 300, 1606 V. Cotton, 575 V. Mois, 1626 Gartshore v. Chalie, 954, 956 Gartside z/. Outley, 1125, ii6g, 1319, 2065 Garvey v. Dodyns, 2256 V. Jarvis, 173S Garvin v. Hatcher, 928 V. Jennerson, 1292, 2261 Gary w. Esterbrook, 1501, i5t9 Gascoigne w. Thwing, 1648, 1700 Gaskell v. Gaskell, 515 Gaskill V. Sine, 2153, 2154, 2179, 2180 ■V. Trainer, 1061, 1154, 1164 Gassage v. Taylor, 442 Gassert v. Bogk, 2043, 2052 Gast V. Baer, 414 Gaston v. Wright, 1948 Gate V. Wiseman, 648 Gate City Land Co. v. Heilman, 1045 Gates V. j^dams, 21S0 V. Andrews, 1795 V. Butler, 211 V. Caldwell, 1989 V. Salmon, 191 1, 1924, 1967 Gales d. Markham v. Cooke, 2S9 Gateward's Case, 2193 Gatewood w. Gatewood, 2173 Gather v. Welch, 2333 Gathings z/. Williams, 755,883 Gaule V. Bilyeau, 1226 Gaulstine 7/. Royal Ins. Co., 632 Gault V. McGrath, 2x33 V. Neal, 1340 V. Stormont, 1278 Cause V. Hale, 645 V. Wiley, 416, 424, 462 Gausen z*. Tomlinsoii, 2125 Gaven 7/. Ha^en, 1282 Gawtry V. Leland, igS, 2245 Gay's Case, 969, 974 Gay V. Baker, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 83 V. Edwards, 1781 V. Gay, 58S, 634 V. Hunt, 1648, 1701 V. Joplin, 1 189 V. Mitchell, 1259 V. Mottiff, 2297 Gay, Exrx.jZ/. Davey, 1179 Gayetty v. Bethuiie, 2205, 2242, 2295 Gayford v, Moffatt, 2238 Gayle v. Johnston, 1894 V. Price, 764 Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 1791 V. Imhoif, 1432 Gayner v. Laresborough, 883 Gazely v. Price, 729 Gazzoloz'. Chambers, 1067, io8i Geary v. Bearcroft, 526 Geay v. McCune, 917 Gebb V. Rose, 646, 882 Gee V. Gee, 1464, 1453, 1640 V. Moore, 1450, 1455, 1469, 1478, 1502, 1518 V. Thompson, 773, 920 V. Young, 48, 538 Gfeeber v. Kleckner, 988 Geggetts V, Geggetts, 727 Geheebee 7/. Stanby, 1316, 1331, 1340 Geiger v. Braum, 996, 1329, 1339, 1343 V. Browne ,1324 Geisy v. Cincinnati, 2325, 2326 Gellespie v. Worford, 604 Gellett V, Rhode, 1013 Gellig V. Maas, 2 121 Gelpcke v. Blake, 136 V. Dubuque, 1516 Gelston v. Burr, 2066 V. Sigmund, 1053 Gelzer v. Gelzer, 923,927, 933, 950, 951, 954, 957, g64 Genet v. Tallmadge, 1023 Genner z'. Tracey, 2176 Gennings v. Lake, 2216 Genty. Mayor, 1194 Center -a. Morison, 2354 Gentleman v Soule, 2206 Gentry v. Wagstaff. 703, 1363, 1370 George v. Andrews, 2071 V. Baker, 2085. 2101 V. Bussing, 650, 651 i<. Cooper, S26 V. Gardner, 2175 V. Goldby, 1034, 1368 •u. Kent, 2153, 21/8, 2183 V. Morgan, 424, 466 V. Putney, 1169, 1170, 225S V. Wake, 795 7'. Wood, 2153, 2178, 2181, 21S3, 2184 George's Creek Coal & Iron Co. v. Detmold, 1997, 2079 Georges v. Stanfield, 543, 544 Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Kinnier, 2116 Gerald %>. EUey, 2331 Gerard v. Basse, 2356 Geiard Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 300, 32S, 1605 Gerber 71, Grabel, 2223 Gerdine z'. Menage, 2137, 2138 German -u. Gabbald, 1G42, 1648, 1G49, ^^^1^ ^^99 V. German, 327 German Bk. v. Leyser, 2333 German Ins. Co. v. Hynian, 631 German Reformed Church v. Seibert, 34 Germond v. Jones, 767 Gerrish v. Brown, 2225 V. Mace, 2060 Gerry v. Stimson, 801, 1537 Gervoy's Case, 966 Gerzebek v. Lord, 1034, 10S6 ' Getman v. Getman, 1635, 1696 Gettings v. Eastman, 368 GetzandafEer v. Caylor, 2251, 2257, 225S, 226R Getzler v. Saroni, 1409 Geugerz'. Braun, 1340 Geyerz/. Wentzel, 313, 34S Ghegan v. Young, 2263 Ghenny v. City National Bank, 1094 Ghormley z'. Smith, 1677, 1678 Gibbes v. Jenkins, 1089 V. Smith, 1599 V. Vincent, 523 Gibbens z'. Thompson, 2255 Gibbiiisz'. Dayton, 13 10 V. Eyden, 589 V. Shepard, 317 Gibbon v. Gibbon, 8g8 Gibbons v. Dayton, 1330, 1340 7'. Dillingham, 45, r698, 2250 Gibbs V. Diekma, 15S6 V. Estey, 847, 851, 2021 V. Esty, 60T V. Marsh, 1599, 1737, 1754, 1830 V. Ougier, 77 7'. Penny, 1677, 2044, 2046, 2055 z'. Ross, 1 120, 2249, 2251 Gibett V. Peteler, 1856, 2359 Giblin v. Jordan, 1426 Gibson v. Chedic, 1795 V. Chouteau's Heirs, 2304, 2322, 2323 7'. Courthope, 1343 V. Crehore, 510, 803, 866, 808, Sog, 810, 1494, 1921, 2074, 2090, 209s, 2097, 2172, 2176, 21S2, 23O4 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXXIX Gibson v. EUer, 1068, 1106, 1107, 1281, 1284, 2037, 2054 w. Foote, 1589, 1610, 1646 V. Gibson, 635, 636, 889, 897, 899, 943, 954, 956, 963 V. Holden, 2235 V. Holland, 1000 V. Jeyes, 1707 V. Maulton, 415 V. McCormick V. Montfort, 2S8, 289, 290, 335, 1563, 1594, JS95 V. Moulton, 447, 472 V. Mulligan, 2257, 2272, 2274 z'. Parlee, 2354 V. Taylor, 2031 V. Rees, 1795 ■V. Smith, 573 V. Soper, 1032 V. Sopier, gS6 V. Wells, 570 V. Zimmerman, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1940, 1950 Giddeus v. Dodd, 1007 Giddiiigs v. Cox, 676, 677, 1362 V. Eastman, 1621, 2058, 2289 V. Palmer, 1665, 16S9, 1790 V. Smith, 401, 411, 412 Giddon v. Andrew, 2074 Gies v. Green, 2167 Gifford 7'. Choate, 344, 351, 352 V. First Presbyterian Society of Syracuse, 37, mo V. McCloskey, 2166 Gilbert v. Beach, 1194, 1195 V. Carter, 1620 V. Chapin, 1627 V. Columbia Turnpike Co., 1515 V. Dickerson, 1905 V. Gilbert, 682, 2136 •u. Holmes, 2059, 2060 V. Husman, 2169 V. Penn, 2016 V. Peteler. 268, 1777, 1849 V. Reynolds, 923 V. Richards, 1878, 1884 V. Sanderson, 2072 V. Smith, 1974 V. Wiman, iioi Gilbertson v. Richard, 2259 V. Richardson, 1552 Gilbraith v, Gedge, 824 Gilchrist z/. Stevenson, 1599, 1660, 1787 Giles V. Austin, 1157 V. Baremore, 2094. 2146 V. Boston F. & W. Soc, 1686 z'. Ebsworth, 1220, 2273 V. Dugro, 2236 V. Gullion. 722, 828 V. Hallock, 2309 •u. Law, 722 V. Little, 339, 345, 1822 V. O'Toole, 1245 V. Palmer, 1750, 1751 V. Simonds. 55, 56 Gilhooley v. Washington, 979, J199 Gillian v. Norton, 1184, 1185 Gilky V. Dickerson, 1231 Gill's Estate, Re, 2r9, 774 Gill V. Clark, 2oot, 2180 v. Cook, 720 V- Edwards, 1504 V. Fauntleroy, 1928 V. Logan, 1796 V. Lyon. 2154 V. Middleton, 1106, 1182, 1191 V. Newell, 1639, 1652 V. Ogburn, 1125 V. Pinney, 2027, 2029 Gillam v. Taylor, 1685 V. Dixon, 1886, 1920, 1931, 1933 Gillean v. Moore, 765 Gillenwaters v. Miller. 1643 Gillespie w. Bailey, 1031,2011 V. Jones, 2297 V. Mayor, 2268 V. Moon, 2331 V. Nabors, 274, 1980 V. Smith, 1758 V. Sommerville, 781, 782, 827 V. Thomas, 1127, 1129, 1167, 1170, 2268 Gillet V. Van Rensselaer, 695 Gillett V. Balcom, 47, 2142, 2146 V. Eaton, 2000 V. Stanley, 985 V. Tre^nza, 574 Gillian v. Swift, gor Gilligan v. Aldermen of Providence, 976 Gilliman v. Moore, 805, 818, 829, 836 Gilling 7'. Maass, 1047 Gillion z*. Finley, 1315 Gillis V. Bailey. 1019, 1972 V. Brown, G37, 712, 784, 820, 821 7'. Martin, 2040, 2043, 2052, 2086, 2185 7'. McKay, 1577, 1741 Gillispie v. Walker, 1579 Gillitt V. Truax, 49 Gilman v. Brown, 2005, 2008 V. Gilman, ^456 V. Illinois & M. Tel. Co., 2066 7', McArdle, 154S V. Milwaukee, 1029, 1132 V. Moody, 2027, 2028 V. Morrill, igig •v. Reddington, 1798 V. Stetson, 1883 u. Stevens, 2056 7'. Williams, 1514, 1515 7'. Wills, 2084 Gilmer 7'. Limepoint, 197, 2326, 2327 Gilmore v. Burch, 679, 681 V. Driscoll, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2248 V. Gilmore, 652 V. Hamilton, 1002 V. Ontario Iron Co., 983 •V. Wilbur, igoi Gilpin V. Davis, 1625 V. HoUings worth, ig28 V. Howell, 42, 43, 817 Gilson V. Boston, loio, 2260 V. Gilson, 2040, 2031, 2037, 2041, 2042, 2102 V. Hutchison, 794, 913 V. Zimmerman, 1920 Gilworth V. Cody, iqoo Gindrat v. Western R. of Ala., 1800 Ginger v. White, 423 Gingrich v. Foltz, 175 1 Girard v. Hughes, 2294 V. Philadelphia, 165S, 1659 Girard Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Chambers, 318, 500, 1675 V. Stewart, 2070 Girland v. Sharp, 1582 Gist V. Cattel's Heirs, 938 Givan v. Tout, 2103 Given v. Doe, 2318 V. Marr, 729, 771, 772, 8ro, 869, gig, 1093, 1376, 2127, 212S Givens w, McCalmont, 2087, 2185 Givins v, Easley, 2274 Gladding v. Warner, 2087 Gladwyn v. Hitchman, 2140, 2146, Glaister v. Hewer, 77g Glascock e*. Robards, 1271, 1290 Glascow?/. Hortiz, 2192 Glasgow (Earl) v. Hurlet Aim. Co., gi Glass V. Ellison, 1993, 1697, 2063 V. Gilbert, 1781 V. Glass, 755 •V. Hulbert, 2045 V. Warwick, 2152 Glasscock ti. Glasscock, 2363 Gleasou v. Emerson, 772, 919, 920 cxxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Gleason v. Fayerweather, 239, 240, 249, 318 V. Scott, 456, 462, 463 Glegg V. Glegg, 963 V. Rees, 1794 Glein V. Rise, 1149 Gleises v. Maignan, 2147 Glen V. Gibson, 1160 Glendale Wooleu Co. v. Protection Ins. Co., i6g3, 1701 Glenn v. Bank of U. S., 902 V. Canby, 1070 V. Clark, 782, 804, 926 V. Davis, 1S67 V. Glenn, 719 V. Peters, 974, 976 Glenorchy, Lord, zl Bosville. 443 Glidden v. Bennett, 63, 103, 104 V. Blodgett, 645 V. Strumpler, 924 Glisson V. Hill, 2047 Globe Marble Works Co. p. Quinn. 122, 132 Gloninger v. Franklin Coal Co., 2189 Glover z/. Monckton, 1596 V. Payn, 2053, 2054 •V. Reid, 1822 Goddard*s Case, 2353 Goddard 7/. Bolster, 105, 2186 V. Brown, 1740 V. Chase, 130, 137, 146, 2334 V. Hall, 2271 V. Lethbridge, 316 V. Pomeroy, 225 V. Sawyer, 2058, 2059 V. Russ, 794 ■ V. Snow, 795 V. South Carolina R. Co., 1308 Goddard's Executors v. Railroad Co., 1335 Godden v. Crowhurst, 274 Godfrey v. Beardsley, 2304, 2365 V. Bryan» 1024, 1945 V. Cartwright, 1026, 1925 V. Godfrey, 1630, 1633 V. Humplxrey, 202, 305, 306, 308, 312, 335 V. Poole, 1792 V. Thornton, 146S, 1475 V. Watson, 2185 Godfrey ex p. Warren v. Rudall, 573 Godley I/. Hagerty, 1197,1202 Godolphin v. Godolphin, 1658 Godrow w. Atkinson, 1883 Godsell, Doe d., v. Inglis, 1310 Goebel v. Iffla, 154S Goehrings* Appeal, 500 Goelet V. Gori, 1951, 1952 Goewayp. Urig, 1914 Goff V. Anderson, 617, 618 Going 7/. Emery, 118, 706, 1754 Gold V. Ryan, 928 Gold Mining Co. v. National Bank, 1020 Goldbeck v. Goldbeck, 596 Golden v. Prince, 2056 Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable Con. Co., 221 Golding V. Golding, 1948 Goldman v. Clark, 1387, 1391, 1417, 141S Goldsberry v. Bishop, 1285, 1290 Goldsborough v. Martin, 16S2 Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners, 2227 V. Wilson, 1266, 1280 Gomber w. Hackett, 1156 Gomez v. Tradesman's Bank, 1592, i6gi Gonnon tj. Hargadon, 20 Gonsolis V. Donchouquette, 1364 Gooch V. Atkins, 715, 734, 735, 741, 838 Good V. Coombs, 1924 V. Fogg, 1514 V. Good, 411, 417 V. Zercher, 904 2324 Goodall's Case, 1996 Goodall V. Mopley, 2148 V. New England Fire Ins. Co., 1668 Goodbura v. Stevens, 786, 825, 1957, 2181 Goode V. Crow, 890 Goodell 7/. Jackson, rg7 ' Goodenough v. Warren, 2364 Goodenow v. Allen, 1252, 1262, 1273, 1281 V. Ewer, 1S94, 1999, 2151 Goodere v. Lloyd, 163S Goodhue 2>. Barnwell, 1782 Goodiil V. Brigham, 487, 1039, 1820 Gooding v. Gibbes, 1664 Goodlee v. Rogers, 1247 Goodlel V. Cleveland, 1309 v. Smithson, 2304,2305 Goodlittie v. Billington, 1568 ■v. Holdfast, 1870 V. Jones, 1595 V. Newman, 703 Goodman v. Grierson, 2044, 2168 V. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., 1188 V. Kine, 2081,2188 V. Randall, 2033, 2037, 2060, 2071 V. White, 2073, 2146 Goodmorst v. Goodmorst, 7S1 Goodnow V. Empire Lumber Co., 103 1 Goodrich v. City of Milwaukee, 1607, 1655, 1656 V. Harding, 33^, 416 V. Jones, 20, 78, 79, 96, J04, 106, 107, 136 V. Pendleton, 1781 V. Proctor, 288, i524» ^754 7'. Russel, 215, 2/17673 V. Staples, 2146 V. Thompson, 1021 7i. Walker, 2353 Goodright v. Cator, 1844, 1845, 1S62 v. Davids, 1139, 1143 V. Mead, 387 7'. Noright, 1 1 57 Goodright d. Lisle v. Pullin, 424 Goodriglit d. NichoUs v. Mark, 1007 Goodright d. Walter v. Davids, j868 Goodright ex d. Drewry v. Barron, 320 Goodrum 1/. Goodrum, 1371 Goodsell V. Myers, 2343 Goodson z/. Ellison, 1742, 1743 Goodspeed t. Fuller, 1700 Goodtitle v, Bailey, 235S V. Burtenshaw, 405 V, Funucan. 1040 V. Jones, 1713, 1742 V. Maddem, 340, 343, 344 V. Newman, 359, 618 V. Otway, 338, 1814 V. Tombs, 1903 V. Way, 993 V. Whitby, 315 Goodtitle d. Gurnel v. Wood, 1572 Goodwin v. Gilbert, 1063 V. Goodwin. 7S4, 823, 969, 974 V. Hubbard, 208 V. Hudson, 2259 V. Jones, 367, 720, 2057, 22SS V. Richardson, 1886, i960, 1963, 2077 V. Winston, 827 Goodwright 7K Wells, 1574, 15S2, 2096 Goodyear v. Vosburg, 501 Goold z\ Great Western Coal Co., 90,93 Goon V. Anthony. 2303 Gordon v. Armstrong, 1238 V. Bell, 2004 71. Bulkely, 1042 V. Dickinson, 763, 766 V. George, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1304 V. Gilman, 1270, 1274 V. Hobart, 2174,2185 V. Ingraham, 485 V. Lewis, 2087, 2184 V. Little, 120S V. Massachusetts Ins. Co., 21x3 ■u. Milne, 2235 V. Overton, 1810 V. Pearson, 1987 V. Phillips, 1701 V, Preston, 2014, 2016 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXXXl Gordon v. Sizer, 2297 c Small, 1781 V. Sterling, 1985 V. Stevens, 916, 918, 940, 942, 944, 945, 946, 956 V. Tweedy, 746, 747 V. Ware, 2128 V. West. [715 V. Wlneldon, 1939 (lore V. Brazier, S22, 841, 844, 843, 1095 V. Gibson, 987, 1032, 1034 V. Gore, 1569 V. Jeiinisoii, 2187 V. Stevens, 1127, 1169 V. Townsend, 726, 727, 729, 822 Goreton z'. George, 1135 (Jorges V. Stanfield, 559 Gorman v. Daniels, 237, 297, 776, 835, 1548, i549> 1550 Gorham v. Arnold, 1999, 2078 V. Daniels, 2315 11. Gorham, 1980, 1984 V. Lnckett. 706 Gorton z>. Hadsell, 32 Goshen v. Stonington, 1517, 2332 Goslin z>. Agricultural Hall Co., 1195 Goss V. Froman, 774, 892, 894 V. Singleton, 1598, 1785, 1786, 1788 Gosan V. Brown, 2137 Gossom V. Donaldson, 1990 <'iOtliard V. Fiynn, 2003 Gott V, Cooke, 1560, 1604, 1684, 1798 V. Gandy, iro6 Gotzler z/. Saroni, 1481 Goudie v. Johnston, 1822 ' Gough V. Bult, 1782 V. Manning, 271, 939, 1858 Gouhenant v. Cockrell, 1461 Gould V. Boston Duck Co., 2227 V. Cayuga Co. Nat. Bank, 225 V. Chappell, 1664 •u. Crow, 661, 771, 772, 919, 920 V. Garrison, 2154 V. Kemp, 1968 V. Kerr, 2266 V. Lamb, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 1594, i597i 1710. 1796 V. Lamp, 1754 V. Lynde, 1537, 1586, 1637 •V. Marsh, 2107 V. Mather, 1814 V. Newman, 2091, 2102, 2147 V. School District, 969 V. Sub- District No. 3, mi V. Tancred, 2088 V. Thompsc-i 1257, 1260, 1261, 1281, 1290, 2248 V. Webster, 539, 66r, 662, 1025, 1368 Gould's Exrs. v. Womack, 898 Gourley v, Woodbury, 1988 Gouverneur?'. Lynch, 2154 V. Robertson, 1657, 2014 Govdell V. Pierce, 2354 Gove V. Gather, 790, 843, 858, 867, 8gi, go8 V. Persue, 86 r Goverin v. Humboldt Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 2127 Governor v. Campbell, 1794 Govier 7/. Hancock, 774, 894, 895, 921 Gowen v. Shaw, 1904 t Cower V. Eyre. 557 V. Howe, 2105, 2106, 2147 V. Quinlan, 1922 V. Winchester, 2174 Gowza w. Grantham, 1029 Grabenhorst v. Nicodemus, 1166 flrable v. McCulloh, 1999 Grace v. Denison, 1053 V. Newton Board of Health, 5 V. Smith, 1241, 1243 V. Webb, 271 Gradner v. Rowe, i6gi Grady v. McCockle, 791, 888 V. Wolsner, 1194 Graff «*. Bennett, 1548 ?'. Castleman, 1667 V. Fitch, 50, 51 Graffney v. Peeler; 2301 Grafton v. Grafton, 229s Grafton Bank v. Foster, 2133 Graggz/. Gragg, 141 1 Grahams'. Bennett, 596, 757 V. Bleakie, 2156 %K Cammamm, 517 V. Campbell, 2007 •V. Carondelet, 114a V. Crockett, 1400 •V. Davidson, 1734 V. Dunighan, 740 i>. Graham, 671, 718, 736, 781, 784 V. Lambert, 1691 V. Long, 2152 7.1. Luddington, 621 V. Moore, 741 V. Newman, 2104, 2105, 2106 •u. Peat, 1351, 1352 •u. Pierce, 1904 7'. Public Admr., 1456 V. Roberts, 513 V. Stewart, 1521 V. Way, 1117 Graig v. Eastin, 1425 t'. First Presbyterian Church, 41 Gramham ^. Houston, 983 Granby v. Amherst, 1456 Grand Canal Co. v. Fitzsimons, 1173 Grand Gulf Bank z>. Archer, 1554 Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. Jarvis, 976 Granderson zt. Gr, ndeison, 965 Grandona v. Lovdal, 57 Grandy, Doe ex d., v. Bailey, 1169, 1170 Granger il Illinois & Michigan Canal, 1037 Grannis v. Clark, 1081, 2362 Grant v, Bissett, 2120, 2126 V. Carpenter, 348 V. Chase, 515, 743, 1142, 2242, 2245 v. Cosby, 1513, 1516, 1517 V. Duane, 2073, 2169 7'. Fowler, 210, 211, 2296, 2297, 2300 V. Grant, 75 V. Hclmes, 2051 7'. Parham, 717 7/. Ramsey, 1264 •V. Tallman, 1092 7}. United States Bank, 2139 V. White, 1213, 1281, 1285, 1316, 1317 Grantham v. Hawiey, 538 Grapengether v. Fejervary, 1738, 2004, 2106 Grass v. Lange, 915 Grassby v. Reinbach, 2106 Gratrex, Doe d., v. Homprey, 299, 1574, 1583, 1606 Grattan v. Wiggins, 2078, 2147, 2175 Graty v. Du Bois, 1400 Gratz V. Ewoldt, 2362 7'. Gratz, 1976 Gravel Hill School District v. Old Farm School District, 233 Gravenor 7/. Woodhouse, 1149 Graves* Case, 556, 562, 564 Graves v. Berdan, 65,66, 1015, 1126, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1179, 1180, 2270 7/. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 1669 V. Boyle, 326 V. Braden, 925 7/. Carter, 1698 V. Cochran, 737. 740, 837 V. Dolphin, 246, 253, 273 V. Graves, 1538, 1610, 1652, 2349 V. Porter, 1075 V. Sawcer, 1247 V. Sayre, 2055 7'. Smith, 223S V. Trueblood, 697 CXXXll TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Graves 7'. Waterman, 1770 V. Weld, 48, 49, S3 Graves, Doe d., v. Wells, 1144, 1145, 1336 Gravillon v. Richards' Exr., 1456 Gray's Case, 28 Gray, Ex parte ^ 225, 969, 974 Gray v. Actor, 1025 V. Baird, 1502 V. Baldwin, 2187 V. Bartlett, 2302 V. Bates, 1897 V. Blanchard, 259, 263, 267, 268,269, 1849, 1861, 1862, 1868, 1972 V. Clement, 2262 z/. Cox, 1200 V. Fox, 1720, 1721, 1724 V. Givens, 1897, 1898, 1899 V. Gray, 1630 V. Henderson, 1662 V. Hill, 1712 V. Holdship, 104, 105, 106, 113, i44j 5^7: 2022 V. Jenks, 2076, 2132 V. Johnson, 12 13 w. Jones, 2310 V. La Fayette Co., 2314 V. Lynch, 1663, 1730, 1810, i8n, 1885 V. McCune, 711, 949 V. Mannock, 525, 526 v. Mathis, 1360 !:'..Obear, 501 V. Palmer, 1957, 1964 V. Rogers, 2258 V. Shaw, 1755 ■V. Smith, 1691 ■V. Slivers, 2024 V. Ulrich, 1777, 2364 V. Wilson, 1050 V. Winkler, 321 Gray, Doe d., v. Stanion, 1276, 1290 Graydon v. Church, 2016 Grayson v. Atkinson, 306, 308, 326 Greason v. Keteltas, 1037, 103S, 10S6 Great Falls Co. v. Worster, 1998, 20S5 Great Luxembourg R. Co. v. Magnay, 76, 1621 Great Northern Dispatch Co. v. Nova Cassarea Harmony Lodge, Ohio. 2263, 2264 Great Northern R. Co. v. Harrison, 1063 Created v. Created, 249 Greathead's Appeal, 734 Greatorez v. Carey, 943 Greeawalt v. Greeawalt. 465 Greeley z*. Scott, 1379, 1419, 1420, 1433, i434 Green's Case, 1S63 Green v. Armstrong, 20, 21, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55 V. Arnold, igii, 1987 V. Beals, 2356 V. Bethea, 2243 V. Blackwell, 1662 ■V. Biddle, 1512 V. Bridges, 1157 V. Burke, 50, 2072 V. Butler, 2025,2132 V. Carsey, 767 V. Chelsea, 207, 209, 760 V. Clark, 2358 V. Crockett, 2007, 2146 V. Crow, 141 1 V. Demoss, 2006, 2007 V. Dietrich, 1008 V. Dixon, 2152 V. Drummond, 1634, 1641 V. Eales, 1099 V. Early, 1777 V. Garrington, 2122 V. Green, 694, 887, 916* 934. 935»9S5» i^3> J737 V. Harman, 2296 V. Hart, 1995, 210T, 2107 V. Hewitt, 534 V. Houston, 2071 p. Hurt, 2099 Green v. Keene, 742 V. Kemp, 2060, 2125 V. King, 1920 V. Liter, 209, 600, 602, 607, 608, 613 V. Maj-ks, 1451, 1496 V. Marsden, 1627 V, Massie, 2250, 2251, 2258 V. Neal's Lessee, 1516 V. Otte, 1377 V. Pettingill, 1862 V. Phillips. 103, 105, 117, 123, 126, 132, 135, ^37 z/. Porter, 955 , , „ V. Putman, 88,692, 703,718, 730,761,815, 826, 1985, 1988 V. Ramage, 2181 V. Rampage, 2154 z>. Redding, 1192 V. Sargeant, 1717, 1776 V. Siter, 2304 V. Smith, 1243 V. Spicer, 253 V. Stephens, 434 V. Sternberg, 2258 V. Sutton, 1815 . V. Tanner, 1624, 2136, 2139 V. Tennant, 822, 842, 844 V. Thomas, 2314 V. Turner, 2020, 206S, 2069, 2071, 2075, 2085, 2094 V. Williams, 1245, 1246 V. Winter, 1708, 1726, 1727, 1768 V. Wynn, 2172 Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Hewitt, 1822 Green d. Cren z'. King, 1930 Greenaway v. Adams, 1104, iiii Greenbaum v. Austrian, 799, 802 Greenby v. Wilcocks, 1093 Greene v. Barnard, 1497 V. Beesley, 1240 V. Cole, 553, 564, 570 V. Couse, 1213 V. Crowe, 1407 V. Dennis, 1541, 1555 V. Greene, 769, 786, 824, 825, 826, 885 V. Keene, 735 V. Rutherford, 1540 V. Tyler, 2060 V. Westcott, 2087 z'. Windham, 1456 Greener v. Klein, 728 Greenfield's Estate, 1792, 1801 Greenhold v. Stanforth, 215, 216 Greenhouse, Ex parte, 1662 Greenia v. Greenia, 220 Greenlaw v. Greenlaw, 1919 Greenleaf v. Allen, 1069, 2361, 2362 71. Edes, 2120 V. Francis, 2226, 2230 Greenlee v. Davis, 2279 Greenly v. Hall, 569 Greeno v. Munson, 1144, 1145, 1150, 1160, 1214, 1222 Greenough's Appeal, looi Greenough v. Turner, 901, 902, 909, 911 V. Welles, 1810 Greenup v. Sewell, 1975, 1986 Greenvault v. Davis, 1081, 1082 Greenway v. Adams, 1057 V, Hockin, 39 Greenwich Hospital Improvement Act, Re, 307 Greenwood v. Clarke, 519 V. Coleman, 1796 V. Curtis, 753, 754 V. Ligon, 729, 730, 1093 V. Maddox, 1398, 1423, 1475 zi. Murdock, 2021 V. Tyber, 1025, 1026 71. Wakeford, 1787 Greer v. Blanchar, 1877 V. Mayor of New York, 519, 520, 746 Refereices are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXXXlll Greer v. Sankston, 775 V. Tripp, itS97 Gregg V. Blackmore, 1976, 2303 V. Bostwick, 137S, 1379, 1384, 1386, 1387, 1416, 1419, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, M39, i442» 1443. M45» M4^ '447 V. ('oates, 267 V. Currier, 1810 V. Irish, 1029 V, Sanford, 2018 Greggs V. Smith, 764, 766 Gregor «', Cady, 1191, 1193 Gregory v. Cowgill. 1806, 1815 zr. Ford, 1364 p. Gregorj', 1987, 1989 r. Hartley, 2025, 2026 V. Henderson, 1607 V. Paul, 2346 v. Price, 234. Bloomington, 1201, 1202 27. Watson, 1623 tf. Wynant, 1658, 1696 Grier^*. Sampson, 1201 Griffin ■zr. Banks, 769 w, Bixby, 57 v, Blanchar, 1622 V. Colver, 1247, 1248 zf. De Veulle, 756 V. Dighton, 29 v. Fellows, 516, 1140, 1142 a/. Ford, 103S, 1039, 1040, 1682 z/. Griffin, 1708, 1975, 2058 V. Ktnsey, 2261 V. Knisely, 1133 z/. Lovell, 2129 7/. Macauley, 1732 V. Marine Co., 2017 7/. McKenzie, 15 17 7/. Nicholas, 2302 V. Nichols, 1405, 1500 v. Proctor. 1422, 1424 V. Ransdell, 145 V. Reece, 891, 927 v. Sheffield, 1348, 1349, 1354 v. Sheley, 1457 V. Sutherland, 1398, 1457, 1514 7K Thompkins, 1104 Griffith's Case, 563, 1153 Griffith IT'. Buffum, 1244 V, Eustin, 1900 v. Evan, 1627, 1629 V. Godey, 1586, 1645 7;. Gi-iffith, 764, 938, 1371, 1599 V, Harrison, 1040, 1807 V. Henderson, 983 V. Hodges, 1167 z'. Lovell, 2155 V. Paramaley, 1023 V. Parmley, 1212 z>. Pownal, 1811 7/. Puleston, 540 Griffith V. Rickets, 76, 1794 V. Robinson, 1806 V. Schwenderman, 1030, 1031 7/. Spratley, 519, 1758 V. Watson, 42 w, Wilcox, 719 7/. Wright, 2302 Griffiths CT. Hamilton, i888 7f. Morrison, 2241 Grigg 71. Banks, 2064 V. Cocks, 1761 V. Smith, 826 Griggsby v. Hair, 2007 Griejnon 7'. Astor, 2304 Grim's Appeal, 535 Grim 71. Dyar, 1917 V. Wicker, 1905 Grimes z'. Byru, 15 10 z/. Kimball, 2134 z>. Orrand, 292, 293 Grimley v. Riley, 2363 Grimshawe z'. Burnham, 106 Grimstone v. Bruce, 1870 V. Carter, 2365 Gring's Appeal, 2138 Grisham z'. State, 595, 752 Grissell v. Swinhoe,9i8, 944 Grissom z>. Hill, 247 Grist z'. Hodges, 1079 Griswold z'. Fowler, 2149, 2150, 2151 z'. Gelding,- 2056 ». Griswold, 2133 V. Huffaker, 1440 z'. Johnson, 191 1, t924, 1967, 1997 V. Messenger, 1537 zT. Penniman, 686 Gristwold 77. Mather, 1997 Grizzle z/. Pennington, 1141 Grob f. Cushman, 2170 Grocers^ Co. 7'. Donne, 199 Groff z/. Rohrer,68i zr. Levan, 1234 Grogan v. Garrison, 898, 899, 957 Gregory v. Duncan, 1758 Grosholz zf. Newman, 1393, 1444 Gross V, Jackson, 107, no, 113 7f. Lange, 792 77. McKee, 2060 v. Welwood, 229s Grossley zf. Lightowler, 2227 Grosvenor z/. Allen, 2036, 2123, 2124 71. Henry, 1281, 1289, 1310 Groton zt. Roiiorough, 689 Groustra 71. Bourges, 1252 Grout ». Townsend, 427, 471,489,513,516,629, 633, 643, 666, 6go. 691, 744, 2349 V. Van Schoonhoven, 1798 Grove v. Barclay, 2261 7/. Barklay, 2260 7f. Brien, 2177 71. Gather, 922 V. Todd, 882, 896, 900, 904, 909 7f. Trueblood, 688 Grover 7'. Flye, 2127, 2128,2131 V. Thatcher, 809, 810,2097 Groves z'. Groves, 1635, 1697 z>. Steel, i6g8 Grubb V. Bayard, 93, 2189 V. Guilford, 2189 Grubb, Doe d., v. Burlington, 549, 550 V. Grubb, 1309 Grube v. Wells, 2296, 2297 Grubbs ff. McGlawn, 1775 Gruenewald zr. Schaales, 1334, 1335, 1340 Crumley 71. Webb, 1619, 1620, 1766 Grundin v. Carter, 1124, 1220 Grute zr. Locroft, 1024 Gruve ?'. Wells, 2295 Grymes 7'. Boweren, 129 Guard 7^ Bradley, 1016 Guardians n. Nathans, 596 Guardians of the Poor v. Nathan, 752 CXXXIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Guardians of the WoodlMidge Union, The, v. The Guardians of Colneis, 1266 Gudgell V. iVuvall, gg6, iiHg- Gudger v. Burnes, 1284 Gue V. Tidewater Canal Co., ^ Gueriu v. Moore, 707, 841, 843 Guernsey v. Kendall, 2068, 2o6y Guest V. Farley. 1548; 1559, 2515 Guffey z'. Hukill, 1162 Guier v. O'Daniel, 1456 Guild z'. Richards, 1154, 1849, 186S V, Rogere, 2270, 2273 Guion V. Locke, 2175 Guiod V. Guiod, 1396, 1449, 1452, 1454, i455r . I4S7. 1461, 1470. M7i> 1524 Guion z/. Anderson, 489, 589, 590, 591, 604^622^ 623, 624, 1364. 1^366, 1369, 137=^ V. Knapp, 2154 Gulf R. Co. V. Owen, 2297 Gulliver d. Tasker v. Ban*, i3c8>. 1337 Gully V, Ciego, 1629 ■V. Ray, 760, 763, 765, 766, 781, 782, 819,. 827, 893 Gunn w. Barryjigio, 1512, 1513, i5f5» 'S'?* 1706 V. Brantley, 2175 V. Gudehaus,. 1395 V. Pollock, 2254 •v. Sinclair, 1164, 133-5, »3J9. iy4<' V. Thomtony 15,13 Gunning z/. Carman, 505, 511,. 519,. 520, 7^ Gunnis z*. Kater, 1164 Gunnison v. Twitchell, 1383 Guns V. Scovi'1^2270' Gunsolus?'. Lormer, 1285 Gunson v. Healy, 2220 (iuphill V. Isbell, 1639, i642'^ 1707^- '729* '74ir 1784, iSoo- Guptil V. McFee, 1399, 1432 Guthrie's Appeal, 402,. 4501 472, 1674 Guthrie V. Field, 2175 V. Gardner, 779, 1647 V. Jones, 109, 110, MZ, 125, i-^^ 139, 145, 1225 V. Kahle^2039 V. Murphy, 985 V. Owens, 873, 931 Guttcridge v. Munyard, jogS. Guttman v. Scammell, 712 Guy V. Butler, 2099 V. De.- Uprey, 2130, 2138- V. Downs, 1459 Guyer v. Maynard, 1605 Guytherz/. Pettijohn, 1246, 1905 Gwineth v. Thompson, iSgi Gwinneil "v. Fames, 1085, i rgg, 120* Gwynn zi. Jonesi'' Lessee, 212, 1285, 134S V. Turner, 2123 Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 796, 828„893,,92e H. Haas V. Shaw 646 Habergham v. Vincent, 315, 1831 Habig «». Dodge, 1985 Hackensack Sav. Bank -u. Terhune Mfg. Co., 2137 Hackett z>. Reynolds, 2003 Hackley v. Draper, 21 58 Haddock v. Perham, 415 Haden v. Buddenseck, 2025, Z059 Hadley v. Hadley Mfg. Co., 1850 z. Morrison, 1291 V. Pickett, 2008 Hadlock v. Bulfinish, 2133 V. Gray, 1939 K.ifer, In re, 1399 Haflic V. Stober, 115, 145, 146, 147, 1224 * Hagan v. Brainard, 2015 V. Lucas, 1516 V. Walker, 2149 Hagar %>. Brainard, 2186 Hagar v. Brainerd, 688, 1998, 2015, 2078 V, Buck, 1074 V, Wis wall, 19S7 Hageman v. Sutton, 2107 Hager v. Schiiidler, 2331 7'. Spect, 1923 Hagerty v. I ee, 2240, 2241 Haggard v. Benson, 1610 Haggart v. Morgan, 1456 Haggin %k Haggin, 1975 Hagthorp v. Hook, 1612, 1777 Hague V. Cummings, 1138 Hahn v. Concordia Soc, 1872 V. Gilford, 1220 Haigh, Ex parte, 2002 Haiglit V. Hall. 678, 698 Haines v. Beach, 2074, 2147, 2169, 2172 V. Burnett, 1096 V. Ellis, 652 V. O'Connor, 1699, 1739 V. Thomas, 2039 V. Thompson, 2053, 2055 V. Witmer, 416 Hait 11. Hoale, 1450, 147.'?, 1475, 1478' Halbrook v. Halbrook, 2349 T. State, 755 Halcomb v. Halcomb, 2163 Haldane 7*. Johnson, 1151 Haldeman v. Haldeman, 411, 413, 420, 42; V. Jenings, 1872 Hale zi. Bower, 1034 V. Glidden,. 212, 2298 V. Hale, 618, 1666 V. Heaslip, 1386, 1441, 1443' v. Henrie, 1648 V. James^ 823, 840, S41, 84^, 843, 844, 845, 846, 934 V. Jewell, 2039, 2045 V. Lawrence, 4, 5 V. Marsh, 317, 318, 536 V. Munn, 764 V. Nashua & L. R. Co., 102& V. Omaha Nat. Bank, 2272- V. Pew, 1693 V. Plummer, 786, 825 V. Rider, 215S V. Wilkinson, r6g7 Hales z/. Petit, 442, 443 Haley v. City of Philadelphia, 671 V. Hickman's Heirs, i335', 1337^ Halford 71. Hatch, 1124 7'. Stains, 1.637 V. Tetherow, 1903, 1904 Hall's Case, 916, 942, 949 Hall's Estate, Re, 813 Hall V. Ashby, 232, 278 V. Bliss, 2163, 2316 7/. Benner, 1017, ri42-, 1149^ 7'. Burgess, 1162 V. Caldwell, 2-176 V, Carter, 1734 V. Chaffee, 322, 470 V. Comfort, 1027 V. Commonwealth, 522 V. Davis, 1894 V, Dean, 1093 II. Dennison, 1795 V. Dewes, 1817, i8r8 V. Dewey, 1144, 2295 z/. Dickinson, 330, 333 V. Doe d. Surtees, 2095 V. Gay, 2298 V. Goodwin, 304, 353. 536 V. Hall, 221,629, 633, 643, 657, 750, 935, 938, 940, 13 19, J334, 1336, 1790, 1793, 1801, 1946, 1947, 1949, 2142 V. Hancock, 2280 V, Heyden, 2016 V. Heydon, 1624 V. Huggins, 2151 V. Lance, 2063 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxxxv Hall V. Lawrence, 215T, 2195, 2198, 2199, 22oo,v 2201, 2295 V. Leonard, 2357 V. Loomis, 1485 v. Mayor of Swansea, 1332 V. McCaughey, 2246, 2247, 2248 V. McDuff, 2003 V. McLeod, 2220 V. Meyers, 1134, 113G •V. Mobile, etc., B. Co., 2068 V. Myers, 1135, 1307, 1337 V. Mullin, 184 V. Nelson, 2149, 2151 7/. Page, 124G V- Peftny, 1514 V. Piddock, 1893, 1S96 V. Priest, 415, 418 z'. Ryder, 1045 V- Savill, 1999 V. Saville, 2053 V. Sayre, 1365 V. Sewald, 122 V. Smith, 2007 V. Southmayd, 1131, 2270 V. Sprigg, 1638, 1642, 1644, 1648 v, Stevens, 1920, 1929, 1092, 1945 v- Stevens, 1917, 1930* V. Surtees, 1279 V. Swift, 2247 1/. Thayer, 252, 396, 411, 465, 466 V. Towne, 2163 V. Tufes, 249 V. Tuffts, 1S57 V. Tufts, 2028, 2029, 2030 zi. TuUerton, 1469 •V. Tunnell, 1998, 2078 V. Vandergrift, 409, 423, 427 V. Wadsworfli. 1254, 1300, 1301, 1303, 1307, 130S, 1322, 1325, 1336, 1337, 1343 V. Western Transportation Co., 1295 V. Young, 1576, 1587 Hallen, Doe d., z*. Ironmonger, 1709 Hallene/. Runder, 143, 145, n86 Hallenbeck v. Dewitt, 2352 Hallesy v. Jackson, 2175 Hallett's Estate, In re, 1621, 1761 Hallett V. Collins, 595, 752, 1545, 1578, 1585, 1765, 1782 V. Oakes, 986, 1032 V. Thompson, 246, 253, 273, 1747, 1798 zi. Wyley, 1175 V. Wylie, 992, 1175, 1176, 1179, 1126 Halley v. James, 368 V. Northampton, 252 V. Oldham, 1773 Hallifax v. Higgins, 2051 Haliigan v. Wade, 1128, 1168, 1174, 226S Hallihan v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., 1197 Hallowav V. Lacy, mo Hallowell z*. Saco, 1456 Halluck V. Brush. 1016 Halserg v. Brown, 21 it Halsey v. Beer, 221, 222 V. Blood, 1883 V. Fairbanks, 1713, 1795 V. Martin, 2042 V. Reed, 2069, 2072, 2112, 2150,2166, 217S, 2179 Halstead v. Bank of Kentucky, 2120 V. Board of Commissioners cf Lake, 215, 1657 V. Commissioners, 2014 Ham V. Ham, 1777, igu* 1931,2301 V. Kendall, 1268 V. Santa Rosa Bank, 1447 Hambleton z/. Duhain, 2307 Hamblin v. Wardecke, 1455, 1502 Hambly v. Trott, 1228 Hamburger. Re, 2260 Hamby v. Walls, 1893 Hamilton v. Hempstead, 448 Hame! v. Lawrence, 1213, 1218, 1271 Hamer v. Sidway, 1589 Hamerton v. Stead, 1162, 1254, 1298, 1313 Hamilton zk Badger, 2208 V, Browning, 211 1 p. Buckminster, 1754 V. Buckwalter, 917, gi8, 938,942, 944,949 V. Clanricarde, 1018, 1039 V. Conine, 1889, 1902 V. Dobbs, 2074, 2136, 2150, 2169 V. Doolittle, 2321, 2322 V. Elliott, 1864, 1S67, 1991 zf. Fowlikes, 2006 V. Greenwood, 1625 V. Halpin, 1958 z/. Hempstead, 414 z>. Hughes, 7S2 ZK Huntley, 132, 133 z' Lubukee, 1670, 2106, 2110, 2163 ». McPherson, 1248 V. Marsden, 1149 V. Nutt, 2359 V. Royse, 2155 ZI. Wilson. 1093 V. Wright, 1065, 1082, 2298 Hamit v. Lawrence, 1213, 1309 Hamlin t. Hamlin, 781, 787, 1376 V. Parsons, 2022 Hammann v. Jordan, 2235 Hammekin v. Clayton, 216, 218, 2014 Hammersley t'. Smith, 1673 Hammon v Douglas, 1264, 1312, 1324, 1330, 1331 Hammond v. Crosby, 2298 V. Dean, 996, 1322 v. Hammond, 307, 309, 312 V. Harper, 2272 V. Hicks, 1783 z<. Myrick, 2155 V. Port Royal & A. R. Co., 1856 V. Zehner, 2242 Hammonds v. Hopkins, 2039 Hamper, Ex parte, 1240, 1244 Hampshire v. Wickens, 257, 1096, 1097 Hampson v. Full, 1633, 1646 Hampton v. Hodges, 21SS V. Levy, 2120 7'. Nicholson, 2134 zf. Spencer, 1691 V. Wheeler, igoo V. White, 2264 Hamrick z'. People's Bank, 1409 Hanbury z>. Kirkland, 1733 Hanchet v, Whitney, 1136, 1300, 1301, 1303, 1308, 1313, 1319, 1320, 1322, 1336, 1337, Hancock v. American Life Ins. Co., 523 V. Austin, 2252 ». Carlton, 688, 1S70, 1871, 1872, 2069, 2244 V. Day, 552, 575 V. Fishing Ins. Co., 631 V. Fleming, 2071 V. Hancock, 810, 2098, 2148 V. Harper, 2047 V. Jordan, 105, 108 zj. Morgan, 1378, 1387, 1419, i434, M46 V. Titus, 1751 V. Watson, 2023 7'. Went worth, 2243, 2244 Hancom v. Allen, 1720 Hand v. Fairbanks, 2334 V. Kennedy, 2068 W.Winn, 1449, 1451 Handley v. Cunningham^s Trustee, 2256 V. Wrightson, 1627 Handlin, Re, 1399, 1432 Handy z'. Foley, 2361 V. McK'm, 285 Handly r'. Sydenstricker, 2305 Hanford v. Fitch, 2176 V. McNair, 1042 CXXXVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. ITanham v. Sherman, 1161 Hanke v. Finke, 635 Hanna's Appeal, 349 Hanna v. Spotts' Hears, 1728 Haanah v. Carrington, 1995 V. Osbom, 533 V. Swamer, 75 V. Wadsworth, 2349 Hannahs v. Felt, 1512 Hannan v. Hannan, 2059 V. Osborn, 1895 V. Towers, 1878, 1932, 1940 Hannay v. McEntire, 573 Hannen v. Ewalt, 1108, 2262 Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co. z*. Green, 1777 Hannon v. Christopher, 2301 V. Sommer, 1475 Hannum v. Mclnturf, 1513 Hanover Fire Ids. Co. v. Tomlinson, 2167 Hanrahan v. O'Reilly, 146 Hanrick v. Patrick, 223 Hansard v. Hardy, 2095 Hansell v. Hubbeil, 414, 415 Hansen v. Buckner, 2359 V. Dennison, 2020 V. Kairtley, 982 V. Meyer, 1070, 1078 Hansford v. Elliot, 316 Hanson v. Buckner, 2350 V. Gardiner, 577 V. McCue, 2230 V. Willard, 1973, 1979. J982 Hantz z/. Seely, 595, 5g6, 752 Hapgood V. Blood, 1998 Haralson v. Bridges, 1359, 1363, 1364, 1368, 1369 V. Redd, 319 Harbison z>. Lemon, 1033 Harbuckz'. Toledo, 2327 Harburg v. Hussey, 1979 Harcourt v. Wyman, 1363, 1364, 1368, 1369 Hard v. Nearing, 2324 Hardcastle, Ex parte, 1761 Harde v. Harde, 544 Hardeman 7k Downer, 1510 Harden v. Cullins, 2301 V. Hays, 331, 333, 341, 342 V. Parsens, 1664 Hardenbergh, Den ex d.. v. Hardenbergh, 1024, 1876,1881,1919,1920, 1930,1931, 1950 Hardenburgh zi. Blair, 499 Harder?'. Harder, 563, 1612 Hardin v. Baird, 1691 V. Forsythe, 1212, 1217, 1220 V. Gerard, 1292 V. Iowa R. &. C. Co., 2155 V. Wolf, 1506 Harding v. Alden, 771, 782 V. Cobb, 1035 V. Glyn, 326, 1593, 1629, 1685 V. Harding, 661 V. Mill River Co., 2146 V. Springer, 1919, 193 1. "^932. 1940.2203 V. St. Louis Life Ins. Co., 336, 1709 V. Wheaton, 1616 Hardwicke v. Vemon,;i7S3 Hardy v. De Leon. 216 V. Gregg, 1883 V. Johnson, igoi V. McCullough, 2241 V. Redman's Admrs., 289, 335 V. Van Harlingen, 677, 1372, 1373, 1562 V. Waters, 2343 V. Winter, 1257 Hare v. Celey, 1233, 1235 V. Groves, irSr V. Van Deusen, 200S Harford v. Johnson, 2S6 V. Lloyd, 1761 Hargis v. Price, 1309 Hargrave zj. King, 256, 1057, 1104, iiii, 1113, 1643 Hargreaves v. Mitchell, 1782, 1783 Harker v. Bitkbeck, 990 Harker, Den ex d., v. Gustin, 1217 Harkins v. Forsyth, 2157 V. Pope, 1131, 1132, 1135, 1315, 13^6 Harkness v. Burton, 1280. V. Sears, 118, 119, 122, 131, 134, 13S1 137 V. Underbill, 2307 Harkrader ?/. Leiby, 1998 Harlan v. Emery, 2260 v. Harlan, 105, 133, 138 V. Lehigh Coal Co., 88, 983 V. Smith, 2156 V. Stout, 1983 Harland?'. Bromley, 1343 71. Trigg, 346, 347> 1627* 1629, 1631, 1632 Harle 7.'. McCoy, 12S3 V. Richards, 1391, 1459 Harley v. Platts, 1553 V. Ring, 2265 V. State, 218, 219, 2014 Harlow v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 983 V. Thomas, 730, 1095 Harman v. Allen, 1211, 1225 V. Kelly, 1983 Harmes v. Chesapeake & O. C. Co., 2325 7>. Palmer, 2074 Harmon v. Brown, 1858 7>. Gartman, 1969 V. James, 214, 672 V. Kelly, 1973, 1979 Harmony Building Association v. Berger, loS, III Harmony Lodge v. White, 1100, 2263, 2264 Harner v. Dipple, 20ti Harnett v, Maitland, 122S, 1277 V. Yielding, loog Harney 7/. Donohoe, 220 7'. Dutcher, 172?! Harnickell 7'. Orndorff, 2160 Harpending 7/. Dutch Churcli, 1899, 1913, 1914 Harper's Appeal, 2086, 2088 Harper 7'. Archer, 19S0 7'. Barsh, 2038 71. Hlean, 304, 306, 313, 326 V. Ely, 1998, 2077, 20S8, 2089, 2090 V. Forbes, 1457, 1461, 1465, 1466 7'. Gilbert, 902 71. Hampton, 367, 720, 2057, 2288 71. Leal, 1506 7'. Phelps, 1591, 1593, 1635, 1651 Harr 7'. Bridges, 1008 Harrell 7>. Harrell, 1986 7'. Miller, 53, 55, 56 Harrer ?'. Walhier, 1934, 1954 Harriman 7'. Gray. 905, 906, 910 7J. Queen's Ins. Co., 1391, 1392, 1417 7'. Stowe, 1 194, 1 196 Harrington 7'. Allen, 2126 V. Brown, 1770 7'. Fortner, 2038 7>. Harte, 1820, 1S25 7'. Murphy, 729, 730, 1092, 1093, 1095 71. Price, 443 V. Watson, 1015, 10S3, 1176 7'. Wilklns, 2295 Harrington, Doe d., zi. Dill, 341 Harris, /« re, 534 Harris v, Bannon, 2081 V. Barnett, 1592, 1614 71. Booker, 1579 7'. Cannon, 1031 7'. Carson, 1205, 1207 V. Casson, 1211 7!. Cohen, 1202 71. Cook, 2107 7'. Elliot, 89 7). Evans, 1007 V. Frank, 1072 71. Frink, 49, 50, 52, 973, 976, 980, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1255, 1256, 1257, I25fV 1267, 126S, 1269, 1271, 1272, 1275, References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxxxva 1276, 1278, 1280, 1282, 1286, 1289 1291, 1297 Harris v Gilbert, 2358 V. GilUiigham, 63, 2212, 2213 V. Glenn, 1513 V. Hickmaa, 2264 V. Hayies, q6, 138 •V. Hydii?. 66, 88, 92, 93, 94, 533 v. IngUdeii, 2176 V, Jones, 2020 z'. Knapp, 31S, i8o5 V. Larkins, 1979 V. Lloid, 2281 V. Mirs'iill, 130-) V, McElroy, 1741, 1753 If. McLaran, 293 V. Mills, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2099 V. Miller, 2240 V. Mills. 565 V. Morris, 9S3 V. N'ortoa. 2125 V. Pepperell, 2331 V. Potts, 533 V. Ryding, 2233, 2237 V. Rucker, 1599 V. Sumner, 1623 •u. Slaght, 76, 225 V. York Ins. Co., 632 Harris, D32 d., v. Masters, 1062 Harrisbargh v. Crangle, 4g3 arrisburgh Electric Light Co. v. Goodman, 45 amson v. Battle, 1820, 1825 V. Botts, 1908, 1925 V. Boyd, 736, 782 V, Brolaskey, 1674 zi. CT.rroll, 909 V. Eldridge, 791, 8gi, 925, 927 •V. Foreman, 1909 V. Graham, 1733 V. Griffith, 832 V. Harrison, i8go V. Harrison's Admx., 943, 1591, 1593, 1627, 1631, 1727 V. Hefln, 872 V. Hicks, 2127, 212S •V. Howard, 1649 v. Jackson, 1030, 1042 V. Laverty, 1698 V. Leach, 15 15 V. Lemon, 2040 V. Lincoln, 883 V. McHenry, 1775, 1776 i>. Metz, 671 V. Middleton, 1261, 1269, 1281, 1293, 1294, 1297. 1350 V. Pag2, 2192 V. Phillips, 2034, 2039, 2132, 2353 V. Rays, 1955 V. Ricks, 1238, 1288 V. Smith, 1762 V. Southampton, 661 V. Stryes, 2058 V. Town, 1697 V. Trader, 959 V. Trustees, 20^8 V. Trustees Phillips' Academy, 2042, 2055 V. Wine, 2085, 2087, 2184 Harrison, Doe d., v. Murrell, 1215 Harrison's Exrs., v. Payne, 855, 858 arrow v. Johnson, 783, 802, 817, 847, 940 V. Meyers, 722 Harrow School, Keepers, etc , v. Alderton, 554 Harrower v. Heath, 1229, 2263 Harston v. Tenison, 1782 Hart's Appeal, 95 Hart V. Burch, 717 V. Chalker, 2026, 2027 V. Chase, 810 V. Evans, 2225 V. Finney, 1315 Hart V. Gregg, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 2256, 2301 V. Hart, 1008 -v. Hill, 69 V- Horn, 1456 V. Hudson River Bridge Co., 1109 V. Isreal, 1120 V. Lindley, 1335, 1340, 1456 V. Logan, 799 V. Marks, 1S83 V. McCullum, 914 V. McGraw, 629 V. Robertson, 1901 V. Sheldon, 116 V. Soward, 1372 V. Thompson. 419 V. Tribe, 1630 V. \yiiite, 3c8, 310, 312 V. Windsor, 1054, 1055, 1080, 1082, 1097, mo, 1175, 1200, 1201 Hartford Bridge v. East Hartford, 2303 Hartford, etc., Ore Co. v. Miller, 1924 Hartley's Appeal, 1811, 1843 Hartley v, Harrison, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2112, 2166 V. Hurle, 1371 7'. O'Flaherty, 2155 Hartman v, Kendall, 103 1 V. Munch, 1421, 1422 Hartness v. Thompson, 103 1 Harton v. Harton, 299, 1561, 1574, 1594, 1608, 165s, 1672, 1673, 1712 Hartshome v. Hartshorae, 783, 802, 803, 813, 814, 818, 866,1975 V. Hubbard, 2079 Hartwell 7/. Bissell, 49, 52 v^ Blocker, 2147 V. Cammen, 84, 85, 88 V. Kelly, 63, 1154,2256,2272 V. McDonald, 1519 Hartwick v. Mynd, 1818 Harvard v. Underwood, 2169 Harvard College -v. Alderman of Boston, 505 V. Boston, 1 102 •V. Gore, 1456 Harvey's Estate, Re, 1836 Harvey v. Alexander, 1698 zj. Aston, 1857 V. Ball, 720 V. Bridges, 1351 V. Erydges, 1357 V. Cherry, 1912 V. Harvey, 127, 563, 1909 V. McGraw, 1076, 1107, 1124 V. Olmstead, 332, 342, 536 V. Wickham, 603, 605, 612, 635, 637, 1512 Harvey's Admrs. v. Thornton, 2149 Harvey, Doe d., v. Francis, 1318, 1326 Harville v. HoUoway, 785 Harvy z/. Aston,.27i Harwood v. West, 1627, 1630, 1863 Hasbrook v. Paddock, io8g, 1139 Haseltine v. Donahue, 2363 Haskell v. Bailey, 2093, 2094, 2147 ZK Hervey, 1783 ZI. House. 1810 V- New Bedford, 2325 7'. Putnam, 1214 Haskill V. Sevier, 2033, 2034 Haskins zk Hawkes, 2085 V. Tate, 535 Haslage v. Krugh, 2252, 2257, 2259 Haslem &. Lockwood, 78, 79, 81 Hasler v. Hasler, 695 Haslett V. Glenn, 538 Hass V. Choussard, 2226 Hasselman, v. McKernan, 2171 Hassett z'. Ridgly, 1977 Hasson zi. Barrett, 2045 Hastie & Silver v. Aiken, 1783 Hastings v, Clifford, 932, 939 V. Crunkleton, 495, 552, 743, 806 CXXXVIU TABLE OF CASES. References arc to pages. Hastings 7>. Dickinson, 889, 897, 8g8, Sgg, 927, 950,951, 953, 954^5^ 95S> 963>964. 9<^^ V. Dollarhide, 103 1 V. Drew, 162a, 1760 7'. Hastings, 1904, ig6g V. Hopkiiison, 1242 7'. Livermore, 1252, 2248 z'. Merriam, 286 7/. Stevens, 511, 783, 802 7'. Vaughn, 2364, 2365 V. Weber, 998, 1000 V. Wilson, 1 1 15 Hasty V. Wheeler, 564 Haston v. Castner, 1623 Hatch V. Barr, 2013 V. Dana, 1581 V. Hart, 1234 V. Hatch, 1016, 2287, 2353 V. Kimball, 2097, 2130 V. Palmer, 802, 805 V. Pendergast, 1144 V. Smith, 2295 V. Sykes, 2257 V. White, 2142, 2t57 Hatcheli r. Kimbrough, 1230, 1231, 1237 Hatcher?/. Hatcher, 1281 Hatfield v. Fullerton, 2269 V. Sneden, 447, 533, 585, 588, 626, 653, 670, 673,678, 6go,6gj, 885,889, 1361,1362, 1372, 1377 Hathaway v. Spooner, 492, 503 H a thorn z/. Calef, 1512 V. Lyon, 622, 65;, 668, 670, 701, 1362 V. Maynard, 1718, 1934 7'. Stimson, 2241 Hatstat z/. Packard, 1344 Halt V. Doe d. Miller, 1272 Hatton V. Weems, 415 Haughabaugh z'. Honald, 1S81 Haughery 71. Lee, 982 Haughton t'. Harrison, 326 V. Haughton, 270 Haughery t>. Lee, 9^9. 1010 Haulenbeck v. Conkright, 740 Hause?'. Hause, 1894 Haussknecht v. Claypool, 1516 Hauxhurst 71. Lobree, 1135, 1309, 1350, 1353 Haven v. Adams, 1028 7/. Emery, 97, 116, 142, 144, 2018 7/. Foster, 355, 2iSr Havens v. Havens, 917,918, 944, 955, 965 V. Klein, 2224 V. West Side Electric Light Co., 45 Haverstick v. Sipe, 2223 Haviland v. Halstead, 754 Hawes z/. Show, 1149 Haweyw. Thomas, 1026 Hawke t/. Senseman, 2296 Hawkes 7>. Hubback, 1561 7'. Pike, 2033, 2034 Hawkins 7/. Clermont, 2031 V. Holmes, 998, 1017, 1042 V. Hudson, 2298 V. Kemp, 1040, 1830, 183 1, 1843 V. Luscombe, 1608 zf. McDougall, 1981 V. McPugh, 1476, 1490 V. Ragsdale, 720 V. Reichert, 1288 V. Senseman, 2297 zf. Sbewen, 365 V. Skegg, 48, 271, 538, 539 z>. Taylor, 1986 Hawksworth 71. Hawksworth, 202, 307 llawley 7>. Bradford, S13, 814, 818, 926, 2164 7'. Burgess, 647 z'. City of Baltimore, 2205 7'. Clowes, 575, 1903 7f. Cramer, 1768, 1769, 1770 V. James, 274, 434, 767, 7S0, 781, 782, S28, 948, 1576, 1637, J63S, 1667,2058,2289 V. Kramer, 1771 Hawley v. Moody, ggS V. Northampton, 24q, 255, 329, 401,415, 416, 448, 449, 450 Haworth t. Wallace, 1226 Hawralty 7>. Warren, 1486 Haws v. Haws, jgio Hawshill Bridge v. County Commissioners, 2327 Hawthorne v. Smith, 1447. M4S, i499» ^5H Haxalls's Exrs. 7/. Shippen, 513 Haxtun 7'. Bishop, 2142 Hay 7'. Cohoes Co., ig8, 2231, 2233 V. Cumberland, 984 7'. Estell, 1975, 1987 7'. Hill, 2123 V. Mayer, 619, 656, 1837 7'. Palmer. 1 172 7'. The Cohoes Co., 2232 7'. Watkins, 1837 Haycraft 7j. liland, 1677, 1678 HaydcU ?'. Hurck, 1739 Havden 7: I'radley, 1084, 10S5 7'. Inhabitants of Stoughton, 1854 7>. IVIeintzer, 2349 V. Merrill, 1894, 1969 7'. Patterson, 1901 7'. Smith, 2132 Haydon 7'. Stoughton, 265, 266, 1S49, 1850, 1853, 1855, 1856, J864 7'. Wesser, 741 Hayes 7'. Berwick, 522 7'. Bickerstaff, 2362 7'. P.ickerstall, 1989 E'.-Fessenden, 1211 7'. Kcdzie,2i3o 7>. Kershaw, 2316 7'. Kershow, 1558 7'. 1 iviiigston, 2302 V. N. Y. Mining Co., 123, 12S, 145 If. People, 596, 757 7'. Sanderson, 1369 V. Tabor, 1559, 1655, 2301 V. Waldron,2225 V. Ward, 2136, 2177, 2178 V. Whiiall, 928 Hayes, Doe d., v. Sturges, 1021 Hayford 7'. Benlows. 76 7'. Spokesfield. 2245, 2247 Haygood 7/. Cuthbert, 855 7>. Harley, 2354 V. Marlowe, 832 Hayne v. Cummings, 1049, 1063 Hayner 7>. Hayner, 963 z'. Smith, 1128, 1167, 1168, 1174 Haynes 7'. Aldrich, 1131, 1132 z>. Bourne, 598, 599, 677, 696, 697 7'. Jones, 1723 7/. Powers, 868. V. Swan, 2046 7/. Thomas, 2205 z'. Wellington, 2148 Haynew z-. Bailey. 1048 Haynie z'. Hall's Exrs., 489, J782 Hayrover z'. Thompson, 596 Hays z'. Davis, igSi 7>. Doane, 123, 129, 130 71. Jackson, 1684 7i. Lewis, 2104 7/. Quay, 1594 7'. Richardson, 2213 7'. Sanderson, 661, 662, 663 Hayse v. Ferguson, 2268 Hay ward 7'. Angel, 1870 77. Clark, 1427, 1428 7'. Cuthbut, 874 7>. Dimsdale, 2331 7'. Howe, 415, 417, 447 7'. Mayor, 2323 7/. New York, 197 7/. Range, 1184 7' Sedgley. 1253 7/. Stiliingfleet, 575 References are to pages. " TABLE OF CASES. CXXXLX Haywood z>. Cope, 999 7'. Fulmer, ggo, 1001 V. Kinney, 1863 V. Miller, 1287, 12SS z'. Rogers, 1237, [23S V. Tliomas, 2298 Hayworth v. Worthingtoii, 1701 Hazard v. Draper, 2118 V. Robinson, 2241, 2245 Hazard Powder Co. v. Looniis, 974, 975 Hazelbaker». Goodfellow, 2303 Hazehine v. Colburn, 1257, 1274, 1285, 1305 Hazcllon v. Lesure, 766 V. Putnam, 2211, 2212, 2213 Har,lelt v. Powell, 1066, loSi, 1127, 1167 Head z>. Head. 64S. 1513, 1335 V. Sutton, 2251, 2257, 225S V, Temple, 1832 Hcadley v. Goundry, 1995 Headman v. Rose, 750 Hcald's Petition, 898 Ileald?'. Heald, 1682 Hcaly v. Alstoon, 1580 Heap V. Barton, 145, 1186 Heard v. IJaird, 1741 7f. Downer, 1450, 1479, 1514 V. Eldredge, 1581 7'. Fairbanks, 49 7>. Pilley, 1644, 1648 Heardson t. Williamson, 1797 Hcarle 7'. Greenback, 598, 599, 609, 611, 654, G80, 684, 6S5, J035, 1372, 2125, 2127 Heani z'. Gray, 1319 2/. Kennedy, 1383, 1519 Hearst z'. Pujol, 1589, 1785 Heart 7'. State Bank. 817 Henrilcy 7'. Nicholson, 1587 Hcr.t'i T'. Riddle, 2303 V. Bishop. 253 7/. CJcalock. 1621 7'. Hall, 2147 J/. Heathe, 325 7'. Henly, 17S2, 1783 7'. Hewitt, 234, 293 T. Hubbard, 1247 z'..Knapp, J371 V. Nutter. 1041 V. Randall, 56, 2213 V. West, 201 1, 2343 V. White, 274, 581, 590, 593, 620, 621, 622, 62-;, 626, 627, 630, 633, 22S1 z-. Williamson, 1144, 2043, 2045, 2053, 2058, 2067 Heathcote v. Paignon, 519 Heatherly v. Weston, 1026 Heathman 7'. Holmes, 1385, 1390, 1391 Heathon v. Lyon, 633 Heatley v. Thomas, 1836 Heaton v. Fryberger, 1480, 1702, 1758,. 2331 V. Pralter, 2121 Hebblethwaite t*. Hepwortb, 596 Hebron v. Centre Harbor^ 2037, 2040 Hebum v. Warner, 1993 Hccht v. Ferris, 1221 Heck V. Borda, 1320 Hedge 7/. Drew, 1016 V. Rose, 2261 Hedges 7>. Bungay, 1786 7'. Everard, 964 7/. Riker, 1037, 103S Hedffepath v. Rose, 1286 Heed 7'. Ford, 82b, 893 Heeney v. Brooklyn Society, 215, 216, 217, 221 V. St. Peters CInirch, 32, 35, 36,38 Heermance v. Vernoy, 104, no Heermans t/. Clarkson, 2130 Heeler^'. Eckstein, 1138, 1156 Heffner v. Heffner. 883 7/. Knapp, 416 V. Knapper, 411, 414, 426 7'. Lewis, 126 Hegan v. Johnson, 1276, 1282 Hegeman v. Fox, 1456 V. McArthur, 1174 Heigate ?>. Willir.ms, 2208 Heim 7'. Vogel, 2166 Hcimstreet v. Howland, 1241, 1244 V. Winnie, 2171 Heinsben-'. Nickman, 765 Heirs of Clay 7'. Clay, 216 Heiss 7'. Murphy, 1603 Heisseltine 7j. Seavey, 1160 Heister v. Fortner, 2121, 2168 V. Futner, 2121 z/. Maderin, 2168 Helburn v. Moffard, noo Hele V. Bexley, 1027, 2162 Helfenstein 7'. Cave, 1451, 1503, 1515, 1523 V. Garrard, 297, 1549, 1550 Helfrich v. Obermeyer, 8SS Hellawell v. Eastwood, 117, 134 Heller, lie, 1892 Heller 7'. Crawford, 2oGr 7'. HufTsniitli, 1905 Helm z/. Frisbie, 412 Hellman v. Howard, 233S Hclmbold 7/. Man, 520 Helmer v. Shoemaker, 311 Melmcs v. Stewart, 1221 Helms 7'. Franciscus, 648 7K May, 149 Helms' Exrs. 7/, Rogers. 17S3 Helphenstein 7>, Meredith, 725 Helwig 7^. Jordan, 1 194 Hemenway, Ex parte, 118S Hemenway 7/ Cutler, 63 Hemmingway v. Scales, 1024, 1887, 1919, 1932, 1936, 1942, 1950. >95^ Hemphill v. Flynn, 1131. 1132, 1310, 131S 7'. Giles, 20G4, 2065 z*. Haas, 1490 V. Ross, 688, iggS Plerapstead 71. Dickson, 319 71. Johnston, 1600, 1601, 1G77, 17S9, 1794 Henagan 7>. Harllee, Soi, 817, 2181 Henderson v. Allen, 1229, 1234, 12S7 V. Baltimore, 2355 V. Cardwell, 1267, 1269, 1301 V. Cross. 1684 V. Eason, ife94 7'. Ford, 1407, 141 1 V. Grewell, 2364 zi. Hill, 298, 336, 1560, 1709 71. Hay, 1096, 1097 71. Herderson, 1093, 1594, 1700,, 188S V. Herod, 2106 7'. Hunter, 1849 7'. Mayhew, 1701 7>. McGhee, 2126 V. Miller, 1292 7/, Overton, 8S9, 1773 ZI. Pilgrim, 2042, 2100, 2102 7>. Squire, 1098 V. Vaulx, 536 V. Warmack, 1763 ZI. Williamson, 1596 Hendrick v. Cannon, 1310 V. Crowley, 1700 V. Judas, 1114 Hendricks v. Rasson, 1900 V. Stark, 2235 Hendrickson's Appeal, 2120 Hendrickson v. Cardwell, 1205 V. Ivins, 55 Hendrix v. McBeth, 561, Sir, 812, 838 Hendry v. Squier, 1192, 1201 Hendy v. Dinkerhoff, 139 Hene v. Brooklyn Society, 775 Henegan v. Haralles, 763, 802, 940 Henisler v. Nickum, 804, 829, 830 Henkle v. Allstadt, 2155, 2180 Henley v. Branch Bank, 1212, 1216, 1217 71. Hotaling, 2044, 2052, 2053, 2054 Henne-j 71. Hayden, 1 193 cxl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Hennessey ?/. Walsh, 1646, 1648 Hemiesy 2/. Farrell, 2otx) Henningz'. Burnett, 22 iS V. Price, 755 V. Barbersoii, gSo Henrietta v. Oxford, 1456 Henrison -v. Cloud. 2364 Henrose v, Griffith, 235S Henry's Appeal, 1481 Henry's Case, 760, 2091, 2172 Henry v. Bell, 20S2 V. Carson, 1723 V. City of Nevvburj'port, 4 J/. Compton, 2177 V. Davis, 2015, 2016, 2o;57, 2040, 2050, 7' Henry, 962 V. Stevens, 2252, 225S ■V. Tupper, 1871, 1S72, 2032 Henshaw v. Wells, iggS, 2065, 2077 Henson v. Kinard, 1785 z'. Moore, 5S6, 893 Henstead's Case, 1026, 1294 Hcnwood V. Cheeseman, 1278, 2260, 2270, 3271 Hepburn's Case, 2169, 2328, 2333 Hepburn n. Curtis, 1517 V, Dubois, 903 V. Hepburn, 1706, 1714 Hcpsham v. Detre, 1224 Hcmd 7'. James, 62 Hcrbaugh -v. Zentmyer, 2262 Herbert's Case, 2178 Herbert v. Dupaty, 1070 V. Gray, C7£ V. Hanrick, 211, 212, 2091, 2297 ?'. Herbert, 1016 t'. Kenlon, etc., Assn., 1479 %i. Wren, S14. S58, 866, 918, 932, 936, 944 Herbert, Doe, d. v. Thomas, 34S Herbin v. Chard, J024 Herkimer r/. Rice, 719 Herkimer, Admr., v. Rice, 1912 Herlakcnden's Case, 22, 128, 134 Hermn.n v. Watts, 1988 Herndon v. Kimball, 2366 V. Pratt. 17S4 Heron 7'. Hoffner, 949 Hcrr's Estate, 1621 Herrell e/. Sizcland, 1254, 1261, 1275, 12S0, 1294, 1295, 1302, 1307, 130S, 1324, 1336 Herrick V. Craves, 1459, 1461 Herring v. Harris, 1020 %>. Wickham, 959 V. WoodhuU, 2099, 2102 Herron v. Hill, 2272 Hersey v. Gilbert, 999 Hershey v. Metzgar, 46, 47, 52 Hershizer v. Florence, 668 Hershy v. Clark, 1912, 1918 V. Shenk, 522 Herskell v. Bushnell, 1231 Hersom -v, Henderson, iGgS Hertell 7>. Vanburen, 1841 Hertle v. McDonald, 2175, 2176 Hervey 7'. Hervey, 932, 954 Herzo V. San Francisco, 2342 Heslet 7'. Heslet, 75 Heslop T. Heslop, S94 Hess's Estate, 2177 Hess V. Marks, 1226 E/. Singler, 346, 1591, 1593, i^JZj 1&S4, 1824 Hesse v. Briant, 76 Hestell V. Bogarl, iSSS Hester, Re^ 890 Hester v. Hester, 1752 V, Wilkinson, 1664, 1716, 1727, 1728 Heth V. Cocke. 826 11. Richmond F. & P. R. Co., 1578, 1721, i7'6, 1759. 1764. 1777. 1779 Hetheri.ngton v. Graham, 774, 892, 894, S95, 921 Hewell V. Coulburn, 2111 Hewes V. Wiswell, 492 Hetzel V. Barber, 1165, 1808, 1809 Hewett, Ex parte ^ 1512, 1513 Hewett V. Rankin, 824, 142 1, 1425, 1432 Hewitt 7'. Foster, 1733 7/. Long, 1464 7^ Templeton, 1381, 1382, 1450, 1478 Hewlins 7/. Shippam, 475. 477. 47^, 53') 2"2, 221 1 Hext V. Gill, 84, 89, 90, 94, 2233, 223S Hexter z*. Knox, 1085, 1086 Hey V. McGrath, 1320 ». IToorhouse, 1350 z>. Sterratt, 2223 Heydon's Case, 435, 54c, 542 Heyer v. Deaves, 2154 7'. Pruyn, 2095 Heyhoe v. Burge, 1242 Heyman v. Lowell, 2151 Heysham v. Dettre, 109, 135, 138 Heyward z>. Mayor, 2325 eywood v. Heywood, 2255 V. Mayor, 2328 Hibbard v. Lamb, 1663 Hibbeler 7/. Gutheart, 1139 Hibben7/. Soyer, 1480 Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 1042, 1044 V. Nivrine, 2339 Hibberd v. Bower, 2120 Hickey v. Hazard, 69 Hicman v. Cantrell, V, Irvine, 558, 806, S61 V. Perrin, 2 121 Hickman's Case, 2327 Hickok 11. Buck, 984 Hickox V. Low, 2031, 2053 Hicks w. Bell, 87 V. Bingham, 2091 •v. Bullock, 1900, 1923 7'. Dowling, 1 109 7.. Hicks, 491, 2040, 2168 7'. Morris, 1497 7'. Stebbius, 7S2 V. Ward, 1815, 1816, 1823 Hidden ii. Hopkins, 2088 V, Johnson, 1651, 20SS Hieatt v. Morris, 2235, 2236 Hiester v. Maderia, 2055 7/. Shaeffer, 2262 Higbee 7>. Rice, 208, 6or 7'. Rodman, 1864 Higby 7'. Rice, 209 Higdon V. Higdon, 1647 Higghibotham v. Barton, 1992 V. Cornwell, 744. 880, 916, 934, 935, 956 V. Holmes, 26a, 272, 935 If. Short, 1973, 1979, jgSS Higgins.7'. Breen, 714, 715, 755, 756, 769, 770 7/. Halligan. 1133, 2261 V. Johnson's Heirs, 1947 V. Kendall, 2004 V. Kusterres, 68 7", Turner, 1 164 ZK Wasgutt, 2361 V. York Buildings Co., 1027, 2163 Higginson v. Dall, 2113 Pi^'^on V Mortimer, 80 Hi^h V. Battle, 1754 Hicham v. Baker, 2216 Hi^hbergert/. Stiffler, 1735, 1769 Hi,hway, ^ff, 2325 Higley v. Millard, 1475 Higman 7/. Stewart, 2179 Hihn 7'. Peck, 576^ 1906 7'. Peek, 1853, 1855 IHhry?'. Walker, 1742 Hilbourn'E'. Fogg, 1219, 1253, 1356 Hildreth 7/._Conant, 1139, 1294 V. Eliot, 1791 V, Jones, 926 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxli Hildreth v, Thompson, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 739> »77 Hileman z'. Uuuslaugh, 214, 281, 424, 531, 672, 1694 Hiles z'. Coult, 217Q, 21S0 Hiley z/. Bridges, 1513 Hilhouse v. Mix, 1908 Hiirs Case, 941 Hill z'. Bacon, 1094, 144a V. Bailey, 1781 V. Barclay. 265, 1091, 1157, 1158) 1S70, 1871, 1872 V Barrow, 416 v. Barry, Hayes & J., 983 V. Bishop of Exeier, 1626 V. Bishop of London, 347, 1631 V. Burrow, 414 V. Chambers, 58S, 651, 668, 670 V. Crosby, 2219 V. Cutting, 2212 V. Den, 1587, 1592 V. De Rocheniont, 78, 79 V. Draper, 2335 * V. Edmonds, 2152 V. Edwards, 2031, 2104 7'. Eldred, 2002 z/. Eliot, 1623, i6g6 V. Epley, 2365 V. Fanners & Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 120, 126 V. Frazier, 1707, 1769 V. Givin, 2064 V. Grange, 2216 V. Grant, 2044 V. Gregory, 785 V. Gwin, 2022 V, Hagaman, 2242 V. Hill, 396, 1291, 1510, 1641, 2212 V. Holliday, 2170 V. Josselya, 1731 V. Kessler, 1510, 151 r, 1518 V. La Crosse & M. R. Co , 201S V. Lancaster, 1481, 1482 V. Lord, 2213, 2214 V. Manchester & SaUord Water Works Co., 2013, 2342 V. McCarter, 2153, 2179, 2180 z'. McRae, 247, 254, 1747, 1748 V. Meyers, 1614 V. Mitchell, 705, 707, 847, 851, 861 V. Moore, 2280 V. More, 1051, 2031, 2103 V. Newman, 2224 V. Packard, 122 ■V. Reno, 1165 V. Ressegieu, 729 V. Robertson, 1998, 2078, 2131 V. Robinson, 1159 V. Samuel, 2364 V. Saunders, 1024, 1025 V. Sewald, 104, 106, 115, 133, 144 V. Smith, 2038, 2238 V. Stocking, 2274 V. Thomas, 533 V. Trustee, 2254 V. Wentmorth, 96, 116, 117, 118, 133, 144, 1046 V. White, 2172 V. Woodman, 1126, 11 75 V. Wynn, 720 Hillard v, Binford, 932, 935 Hillary v. Waller, 1743, 2094, 2291, 2292 Hilleary v. Hilleary, 717, 731, 732- 815, 820, 826 Hillebrant v. Brewer, 1248 Hillgartner v. Gebhart, 853, 854, 855 Hillhouse V. Chester, 600 V. Dunning, 2053 Hilliard z'. Scoville, 1982 Hills V. Dey, 1982, 1988 V. Doe, 1910 V. Eliot, 2147 V. Loomis, 2046 Hills 7K Miller, 22ir, 2214, 22/5, 2216 Hilsendagan v. Scheich, 1251, 1262, 1269, i28r» 1293. »327. 1329 Hilton V. Bender, 1149 V. Granville, 94 V. Merrill, 121 1 Himeswoith v. Edwards, loio, 1233, 2259 Hinchliffe v. Shea, 792, »jo6, 907 Hinchman v. Emans, 810, 1580 V. Isle, 1297 %>. Sliles, 783, 817, 928, 2164 Hinchman, Den ex. d., z'. Clark, 415, 444 Hinda[i v. Jordan, 2271 Hinde v. Chorlton, 39, S3 V. Longworth, 518, 1625 Hinds' Estate, no Hinds V. Allen, 2146, 2156 V. Ballou, 766, 802, 8og, 8io, 826, 2097, 2100, 2103, 2104, 2130 V. Pugh, 726 V. Stevens, 886 V. Terry, 1246, 1905 Hinely z'. Margaritz, 2344 Hines v. Anient, 116, 123 V. Eallou, 2130 V. Duncan, 1397 V. J'ralliam, 2100 V. Robinson, 1969, 2226 V. Trantham, 1908 Hingham v. Sprague. 1252, 1284 Hingham & Quincy Bridge Co. u. County of Norfolk, 2327 Hinklc*s Appeal, 1815 H inkle z/. Wanzer, 15S5 Hinkle's Lessee v. Sliadden, 236 Hinkley?'. Russell, 561 Hinkley & E. Iron Co. v. Black, 63, 139 Hinman v. Cranmer, 209 Hinsdale v. Humphrey, 1043, 1063 Hinton, Ex parte, 1677 V. Goye, 1S25 Hintze v. Thomas, 2262, 2264 Hipp z'. Babin, 1669 Hiram v. Pierce, 753 Hiscock V. Jacox, 824 V. Jaycock, 787 t/. Phelps, 167 1, 1962 Hissem v. Johnson, 142S Hitchcock V. Carpenter, 764, 870 V. Harrington, 688, 764, 782, 783, 799, 800, 803, 804, 805, 830, 864, 867, 874, 809, 930, 1580, 2062 V. Hotchkiss, 4H5 V. Merrick. 2101 V. North- Western Ins. Co., 2116 7'. United States Bank of Pa., 2144 Hitchen v. Hitchen, 970, 973, 980 Hitchens v. Ricketts, 1039 V. Shaller, 2212 Hilchinsz'. Hitchins, 816,819, 886, 935 V. Masterson, 135 Hitchison v. Kay, 126 Hitchman v. Walton, 132, 135 V. Wilton, 968 Hith V. Cocke, 924 Hitner v. Ege, 506, 686, 693, 703 Hitt v. Holliday, 2073 Hittinger v. Eaines, 71 Hitz V. Metropolitan Bank, 641, 642, 1598 Hixon V. George, 1457 Hoadges v. Tennessee M. F. Ins. Co., 2116 Hoadfey v. Hadley, 2033, 2124 Hoag V. Hoag, 1149 V. Wallace, 211 Hoagland's Case, 2266 Hoagland v. Crum, 2260 Hoare v. Dawes, 1242 V. Osborne, 1687. 168S Hobart v. Fnsbie, 2334 V. Sanborn, 1998 Hobbs 7'. Blanford, 65S, 794 V. Harvey, 841, 842 TABLE OF CASES, References are Hobbs r. Hobson, aoia t'. Lowell, 2^02 r. Sniuh. J04 Hobday t'. Peters, iSz6 Hobert*s Case, 2176 Hobson f. Kelt's. ::io3 r*. Trevor, 1573 T*, ^^■hitlo\v. 1690 r-. Vancy. .^^52. 2250 Hoby f, Hoby, Si 1, S3o. Spi V, Roobuck. ^^5J Hockley r\ M.iwbev, 1S12 Hoddeil : . I'ugh. 7D Hodge f. Oiese, 104^ r. HoUisler. 147?, 1-179 7-. Wyatt. I7v>4 Hodgen r. limteiy. 2136. 2171. 2174. Hodges c. FJdy. j^gti, 2*07.:22k)S f. Greew, 31 T\ Heal, K!2i T-. Howard, qoS, 999 T*. Isaac, 325 T'- R,iyii^"ind, 2227 !■. Sliii-'lds, 1160. 1169, H70. «2i3, 1210, r222 x». Tennessee Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Hodgklns c. Knnor. 2230 V. Price. 1151 r-. Robson, 1072 HodgkiiKoii r*. Crowe, 1065, 1096, 1097 f. Petitioner, igSi Hodgnian t'. Smith, 1341, 1242 Hodgson f. Field, 90 f. Lovell, 1477 V. Shaw, 3137 Hodley :■. Taylor. 1202 Hodson :-. Sliarpe. 1353 f. Treat, 2 15J, 2156 Hoe\'eler r. Fleming, 1106, 1167, 1193 Hoff V. Bann, 1153 f. McCauley, 2i?>) Hoffar r. Dement. 1027, ioj? Hoffman T'. Armstrong, 20, 56 f. Burke, 3158 f- Clark, 13S0 I'. Harrington, 1999, -i4t\ -17s T'. Hill, 1473 r*. Kuhn, 22,^5 I*. MAck.ill. i7.?S. 1756 T". McC.illuni, 1330 r. Newh.iiis. ijyL', 1403, 1414 7'. Porter, z^j^o V. Risk. 2150 r. Savage, 725, 742 z\ Stigers, 1024, 1919, 1020, io,m. t'M-. i.)5i, uyS, 1977 Hoffman Steam Coal Co. r*. Cumberland Coal & Iron Co., lOiS, 161U, 1O20, 1770, '774 Hoffstettcr v. Blattner, 1898 Hogan f . Andrews. 333, 536 f, Barry, 2S4 f. Jackson, 303, 302, 306, 309, 313, 336 t'. Jacques, u\?7, it^iS, 1700 7: Manners, gjt*, 1390, 1391, 1416, 1424, 1446 T'. Stayhorn, i(>37 Hogau's Heirs v. ^\'clcker, 281, 531 Hoge :'. Hall, iSt\t r'. Hojre, 1433, 1424, 1699, 1701, 1703 T'. Hollister, 1450 Ho-ell ;•. Ijudell, 204S Hogg 7', Longsiretch, 2136 Hogg, Doe d., 7'. Taylor, 130S Hoghton 7'. Hoghton, iSoi Hogsbooni 7'. Hall. 1S72 Hngsett 7'. F.llis, 2ob^ Hogle 7', .Stewart, SS3 Hnit 7'. Russell, 2039 Hoitt 7'. Webb, 137^, 1412, 1433, M45. "r^'O, 1707 Hoke r, Henderson, 2334, 2320, 23,11 Hoker r*. Boggs, 646. 047. 103S Holbrook r. American Ins. Co., 3089,3116 f. Bitton, 2015 f. Chamberlin, isa, 1224, 2013 r. Dickenson, 2120 f. Finney, 7^2, 70,;. 705. 700, 7S5, S05, Si 7, S20, 1492, igio. 2357 r. Xicliol. 23tx> Holconib 7'. Holcomb. 2149. ^155 Holcombe v. l^ikc, 401, 423 Holciafi 7'. King. 22o^ Holden f. Cox; 2272 7'. New York C^!; Frie l>ank, 1760 T'. Pike, Sio, 2097, 2153 7'. Pinncy. 1444, 1449 7*, ^tate. 1003 Holder x: Coates, 56, 57 T'. Taylor, 23^2 Holderby t*. Siutforth. iSja Holderness r. Carmarthen. 24, 435 Holdfast 7'. Marten. 311, 312 7'. Morten, 202 Holdrich 7'. Holdrich, o>S, 944. gt'5 Holding f. Holding, v^;S Holdridge r. (.'.illcspic, 170S, 19^1^, 1996, 30(;t;, ^l^S Holdship 7'. Patterson, 2S4, 273, 500, 1674, 1675 Hole r. Rittei house. 517 T'. Thomas. 570 Holford 7'. T^unnett. 1067 7'. Hatch. UV3 Holifield 7'. Robinson. 16S7 7', White, 1245 Hollaik^ 7'. l^arnes, 1033 7', T'onis. 1 t;4o t'. Ciliiens' Sav. Bank, 2095, ^137, 2160, 2l^2 7'. Criift. 445, ^(xi, 2101 r-. Fuller, 780. 1964 7', Hodgson, 103, 120, 122, 125. 126, 127 7'. Hoyt, 1041 7'. Mayor. 07^ HoUbrook 7'. Chamberlin, loiS HoUenbeck 7'. McDonald, 38, 9S3. 3221. 2243 HoUey 7'. Glover, 7S5 7". Ha\v!c>', iSg7, 1899, 7'. MetcaU. 1334 Hollida z', Shoop. i('4r, 1642, 1652. 1634 Holliday r-. Camsell, 1246 7-. Cromwell, 2rg5, 2366, c. Mai^hall, 1091 7'. Overton. 22S Hollifield V. Stell. 415. 419 HolUmanr'. Smiili, 1445. 14(15 HolUngs 7'. Mead. 2344 Hollingsworth r-. Floyd, 2177 7'. Stennelt. i2tK). 1270, 1271, 127S, 12S4, 12I.JO 7'. Trueblood, 075 Hollis's Case, i 7S3 HoUis r. lUirns. 1327, 132S, 1329, 1330, 1340 „ ... ''■ I'^^ll; '--V- ;-(M. i35o. '354, i355 HoIhster7'. Sliaw. 183^ Hoilocherv. Holiocher. 1700 HoUoman 7'. Holloman. St>o, S64 H olio way t'. Brinkloy. 1:13^ ?'. HoUoway, 1380, 1402 7' Sherman. isiS Hollowell 7', Simon^son. 040 Holly 7'. Brown, 208, 113S, 1293, 1396 p. no]l\'. 22';i, 2250 Holman r. Hailev. 2i;7.'3i2S f. Creagmlles, 1093 7'. llnlman, 849 T', Loynes, 76 Holmes* Case. 617 Holmes 7', Best, 1804, 1895 7'. Pilogg, 1031 7'. Hridgnian. 479 ;'. Charleston ^lutual Fire Ins. Co., 1701 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxliii Holmes r. Cleveland, 2303 v. CogluU, 4S7, 1S20, 1825, 1S40 V. Crowell. 2302 7'. Day. 1307, 1320, 1336, 1343 V. Field, 271, 2S9, 596, 636, 663, 664, 751, 757, 75S, 795i So2, 1093 z>. Fisher, 2033 z'. Fregh, 2052 V. Gardner, 2107 V, Goring, 2242 V. Grant, 2039, 2040, 2042, 2044, 2052, 2053. 2054 V. Holmes, K173. 1979 t'. Johnson, 5^2 V. Kring, S3 7 V. McGee, 714, 725 V. McGinly, 2105, 2107 «'. McMaster, 993 V. Mead, 154S 7; Old Colony R. Co., 1241, 1243 r', Pattison, 337 z'. Rerason. 367, 720, 2057, 22S8 z'. Seeley, 221S z'. Seely, 1023 z'. Shepard, 1151 V. Tallada, 1430 z: Tremper, 105, loS, 124, 144 z'. Turners Falls Lumber Co., 215S, 2160 V. Williams, 340 Holridge V. Gillespie, 1769 Holroy r-. Marshall, 2017 Holsman zr. Abrams, 1315, 1317 :'. Boiling Spring Co., 2225 Holsmans z/. De Grey, 2262 Holt I'. Creamer, 2030 z'. Holt. logo V, Rees, 102S v. Sargent, 2206 Holt, Doe d., 7'. Harrocks, 607 Holthaus 7'. Hombostle, 1402 Holzderber v. Forrestal, 996 Home T. Home, 926 Home Life Ins. Co. z'. Sherman, 1127, 1167, 116S, 1 170, 1 172, 225S Homeopatliic Rlut. Life Ins. Co. .-. Marshall, 2136 Home Protection of Northern Alabama t\ Caldwell, 631 Homer z\ Den ex d. Leeds, looi z>. Homer, js%! 1^-^. i*J&S> 1690 z'. Shelton, 351 Homes z\ Burt, 1425 Homestead Cases, 13S0, 1512, 1513, 1517 Homestead Assoc, z'. Knslow, 1450, 1467 Hon 7'. Hon, 1652 Hone V. Van Schaick, 19S0 p. Woolsey, 1795 Honore z\ Bakewell, 2006, 2007, 200S f. Hutcliings, 2043, 2054 V. Lamar Ins. Co.. 2113, 21 17 Honywood z'. Hoiiywood, 559, 560, 561 Ho'.izik z: Delngise. 123 Hoonberry z>. Harding, 297,298,336,499, 1560, 1700. 171- Hood 7'. Hartshorn, 1051 zi. Hood, 76, 662, 771, 919 V. Mathis, 1213 7'. Oglander, 1627, 1633 Hoofnagle ?'. Anderson, 2304 Hook 7'. Mowre, 1626 Hooker 7-. Hooker, 0Q4, S16, 886 7'. New Haven & N. Co., 2327 Hooks z: Lee, 645 Hooper 7'. Cummings, 1849, 1850, 1S51, 1855, iS'v. "072 V. Dwiiinell, 996, 12S3 V. Faniswcrtli, 1014, 1015 r. Henrv, 2^01. v. Hooner, S65, 868 c Robinson, 631 V. Wilson, 2063 Hoopes 7'. Bailey, 2044 V. Carver, 2295 Hooton 7'. Holt, 997, 1283, 12S6, 1305 Hoots 7'. Graham, 731, 733, 734,735. 739. 74». S3 4 Hoover t, Landes, 941 7'. Samaritan Society, 1828, 1829, 1830 V. United States, 1035 Hope 7'. Cason, 1291 7J. Johnson, 1605 V. Rusha, 415, 418 7'. Stone. 2009 Hope ex d. Brown 7'. Taylor, 306, 309 Hopewell 7'. Ackland, 307 Hopkins z'. Carey, 1579 ?'. Dumas. 1649 7'. Frye, 671, 781 V. Gavrard, 2006 V. Gihnan, 10S6 V. Helmore, 2255 V. Hopkins, 1551, 1552, 1557, 1558, 1564, 17S2 7'. Myall, 1831 7'. Robinson, 2295 V. Stevenson, 2oiiS 7'. Threlkeld, 456, 464 7'. Toll, 19S1 7'. Ward, 1744, 2147 T*. Wolley, 217c), 21S0 V. Wooley, 2154 Hopkinson 7'. Dumas, 761, 763, 781, 788,827, 831, 15S0, 1622, 1646 Hopper 7'. Childs, 1211 V. Cummings, 1S61 V. Dwinnell, 1304 V. Hopper, S6S. 869 7'. Parkinson, 1497 Hopper, Den ex d., 7/. Demarest, 598, 603, 604, 614 Hoppock 7'. Ramsey, Sio Horn 7'. Baker, 125 V. Cole, 2302 7'. Indianapolis Xat Ek., 2073, 2074,2171, t'. Jones, 2149, 2151, 2152, 2171 7'. KeteUas, 1702,2045,2048 V. Taylor, 2222 V. Tufts. 1425, 1444 Hombeck z>. Westbrook, 266, 2356, 2361 Hornberger 7'. Hornberger, i686 Hornbrook 7'. Lucas, 2273 Hornby 7'. Houlditch, 2263 7>. MuCuUough, 2241 Home 7f. Howell, igoo 7'. Lyeth, 1(^109 Homer 7'. Den ex d. Leeds, 1003 7'. Dipple, 2343 7'. Horner, 753 T'. Swann, 1S44 7'. Watson, 91, g2. 2233, 2237 V. Zimmerman. 2156 Homsey z-. Casey, 935 Horser r'.Hoag. 22S9 Horsey v, Hoi-sey, 1308 Horsley 7'. Chaloner, 325 Horstman 7'. Gerger, 2147 7'. Gerker, 21 10 Horton z'. Cook, 435 7'. Cooley, 22'ii 7>. Horton, 288 7: McCoy, 94, 05 c. N. V. Cent. R. R. Co., 1138, 1139, i'57 v. Sledge, 207. 2316 Horwitz 7'. Davis, 22OG 7'. Noriis, iSjy Honvood 7'. West, 1.47, i6;,2 Hosea 7'. Jacobs, t(>y2 Hosford 7'. Ballard, 2262 7'. Merwin, 1975 7'. Nichols, 3^7, 720, 920, 2057, 205b, 22SS V. Wright, 730 cxliv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Hosier, Doe ex d., v. Hall, 1773 Hoskin V. Woodward, 132 Hoskins v. Litchdeld, 1407, 140S, 14931 i494> 1495, 1506 V. Rhodes, 1230, 1231, 2254 Hosmer v. Carter, 2015 V. Wallace, 2306, 2307, 2308 Hosser's Succession, 2282 Hoston V. Seeley, 839 Hot 7/. Master, [814 Hotchkiss V. Clifton Air Cure, 2161 V. Elting, 1808 Hotham v. East India Co., 1855 Hotley V. Scoft, 1040 Houble V. Volkening, 2131 Houck V. Ritter, 652, 670 V. Yates. 68 Hougan v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 2230 Hough V. Bailey, 2027, 2034, 2095 V. Birge, 1276 V. City F. Ins. Co., 2113 •u. Osborne, 2106, 2111, 2147 Houghtaling v. Houghtaling, 2213 Houghton, /i^/Jari'^, 1173 Houghton V. Cliicago R. Co., 69 V. Hapgood, 679, 680, 689 V. Houghton, g6i, 962, 1957 V. Kendall, 234 V. Lee, 1503, 1697 V. Mfgrs. Ins. Co., 21 15 House V. Burr, 2262, 2263, 2264 V. Hoose, 96, 127, 510, 5ir, 802, 803, 8r8, 1646 V. Jackson, 711, 712, 761, 779, 780, 815 V. Palmer, 211 Houser v. Lament, 2039 Houston V. Brown, 587, 588, 670 V. Farris, 1159, 1212, 1220' V. Hughes, 288, 289, 1594, 1711 V. Lafee, 2226 V. Laffes, 2212 V. McCluney, 1893 V. Newsome, 1393 V. Nowland, 1750, 1794 •V. Smith, 711, 712, 759,760, 761 V. Spruance, 1855 z>. Winter, 1394 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Winter, 1445 Houts V, Showalter, 46 Houx V. Seat, 144 Hovell V. Barnes, i6og Hovenden v. Annesley, 601, i6i5,"r785 V. Knott, 2172 Hovey v. Chase, 986, 1886 V. Hill, 2iog V. Hobson, 986, 987, 1034, 2345 How z/. Broom, 1173 V. Kennett, 1301, 1306 V. Stevens, 39 V. Vigures, 1996 V. Whitfield, 181S Howard v, Aiken, 1782 V. Ames, 2163 •V. Carpenter, 993, 1350, 1354, 1355 V. Carusi, 1627 V. Cavendish, 776, 778, 859 V. Chase, 2125 V. Davis, 2x63 V. Dill, 2273 V. Donohue, 1897 V. Doolittle, 1054, 1175, 1197 V. Fessenden, 141, 2021 V. Ellis, 1103, 1184 V. First Parish of North Bridgewater, 31, 32, 35. 36, 38,40* 83 •V. Francis, 936 V. Gresham, 2129 V. Handy, 2149 ■V. Harris, 2051, 2068 V. Henderson, 297, 298, 1560 •v. Hillbreth, 2095 V. Hcey, 1199 Howard v. Hopkins, 1872 •u. Houghton, 2077 V. Howard, 2128 V. Logan, 1461 V. Merriam, 1137, 1252, 1263, 1266, 1269, i27i,r,i284, 1293, 1294, 1322 V. Miner, 1S65, 1S66 V, Moale, 468 V. Norfolk, 372, 1212, 1226 zi. Priest, 786, 824, 825, 1957, i960, 1963 V. Reedy, 2296 zj. Rhodes, 1600 V. Robinson, 199S ^^ Runsen, 2270 Howard v. Terry, 1223, 1259, 1282, 1290, 1292 V. Wemsley, 1311 Howard Co. v. Kyte, 1184 Howard College v. Amory, 1719 Howard Fire Ins. Co, v. Bruner, 2116 V. Chase, 1667, 1668 Howard Ins. Co. v. Halsey, 1777, 2022, 2120, 2154, 2179, 2180 Howe, Matter of, 1355 Howe V. Adams, 1452, 1483, 1514, 1515 V. Batchelder, 51, 53, 55 V. Burr, 1320 V. Howe, gS6, 1032 V. Jackson, 787 V. Lemon, 2072, 2176 11. Lewis, 2r28, 2129 •u. Russell 2037 V. Scannett, 1025 •V. Starkweather, 42, 817 ZK Stevens, 31, 32, 36,38 V. Wilder, 2134 HowcU V. Barnes, 181 1 V. City of Buffalo, 2335 V. Earp, 225 V. George, i486 V. Harvey, 1244 V. Howell, 1277, 1646 ZI. McCork, 2225 V. McCrie, 1490 V. Price, 1994, 2010, 2082 ZI. Ripley, 1027 z). Schenck, 45, 47, 102S, 1209 ZK WoUfort, 485 Howell, Den ex d., w. Ashmore, 1220 Howell, Den ex d., v. Howell, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297 Howeth V. Anderson, 1181 Howey v. Goings, 661, 662 Howland -u. Coffin, 1071, 1072, 1074, 1075, 1077, 1118 zf, Howland, 2 ZI. Shurtleff, 2093, 2095, 2146 Howton 7', Frearson, 2220 Hoxie ZI. Carr, 825 zf. Ellis, 1985 ZI. Hoxie, 1614 Hoxsie v. Ellis, 717, 731, 732 Hoxton ZI Archer, 403, 404 Hoy V. Eramhall, 2153, 2166 z). Bramhalt, 2068, 2069 z}. Gronoble, 1245, 1247 V. Hoh, 1069, 1098 V. Sterrett, 2233, 2292 Hoye V. Swan, 211, go8 Hoyle V. Cazabat, 2128 V. Jones. 325 V. Plattsburgh & M. R. Co., 98, 112, 113, 20i8, 2019, 2021 V. Stowe, 1026, 1031, 1925 Hoysradt zj. Holland, 2150 Hoyt V. Bradley, 2032 V. Davis, 892 z}. Hillon, 2335 z>. Home, 1519 V. Howe, 1386, 1442, 1501, 1502, 1504, ^»5'8 z>. Jaques, ]8r6, 1832 V. Kimball, 261, 1&67, 1873 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxlv Hoyt V. Martense, 2016 Hubbard v. Bagshaw, 105 V. BurrelT, 1623, 1765 ZK Chenango Bank, 233 V. Coolidge, 1758 V. Cummings, 2011 z'. Elmer, 1832 •u. Goodwin, 218 7'. Harrison, 2106, 2111 V. Hubbard, 936, 1154, i860, 1868, 1980, 2031, 2033 V. Jarrell, 1758 V. Knous, 902 V. Morton, 829 V. Ricart, igSo V. Savage, 2029, 2030 V. Shaw, 545, 1223, 2090 V. Smith, 1277 V. Town, 2223 Hubbell V. Broadwell, 909 V- Canady, 1386, 1407, 1408, 1431, 1441 V. East Cambridge Five Cent Savings Bank, 106, 109, 122, 132 V. Medbury, 1621, 1781 V. Moulson, 800, 1993, 208s, 2184, 2185 V. Sibley, 2147, 2175 Hubby z'. Nubby, 2125 Hubee v. Hubee, 516 Huber's Appeal, 1655 Huber v. Huber, 648 V. Reiley, 2324 Huckabee v. Billingsley, 1712, 1722, 1760, 1778, 180 1 Huckins v. Straw, 2063 Huddleston v. Lazenby, 216 Hudnall v. Burkle, 719 Hudnit V. Nash, 2148 Hudson V. Coppard, 1184 V. Dismukes, 199 V. Poindexter, 2633 V. Porter, 1205 V. Putney, 2180 V. Revett, 2339, 2340 V. Steere, 711, 776 V. Treat, 1945 V. Wheeler, 1263, 1269, 1293 Hudspeth w. Harrison, 1430 Huebsch v. Scheel, 520,810 Huebschmann v. McHenry, 61 Huerstel v. Lorillard, HuS V. Earl, 1620 V. Farwell, 2155 V. McAuley, 54, 55, 2214, 2240, 2313 Huffell V. Armistead, 1311, 1327, 1330, 1342, 1343 Huffman v, McDaniel, 1003 V. Starks, 1010, 1013 Hufrman v. Starks, 2259 Huger V. Dibble, 1301, 1303, 1315 Huggins 7- Hall, 214S Hugh V. Eirge, 1202 Hughes V. Blackwell, 2095 V. Boyd, 271 V. Brown, 1660 V. Carne, 1985, 1986 V. Chatham, 1273, 1288, 1289 V. Devlin, 1980 V. Edwards, i860, 1863, 1995, 2000, 2014, 2027, 2037, 2042, 2046, 2048, 2049, 2078, 2094, 2095, 2146, 2168, 2174 V. Graves, 2155, 2299 V. Holliday, 1908 V. Hughes. igo8 V. Kearney, 852, 2008 V. Lane, 909 V. Palmer, 1058, 1138 V. Parker, 999 V. Patterson, 2149 w. Providence, 2206 V. Robotham, 1165 V. Shaw, 795 V. Sheaff, 2043, 2044, 2053 10 Hughes V, Vanstone, 1152 V. Watson, 905, 968 V, Watt, 1 159, 1502 V. Wood, 1066, 1245 7/. Worley, 2030, 2140 Hughes, Den. ex. d., v. Shaw, 914 Hughlett V Harris, 573, 574, 577 V. Hughlett, 1735 Hugley V. Gregg. 764 Huguein v. Baseley, 1801 Hugunin v. Cochrane, 832 V. Dewey, 1481 Hukill V. Myers, 1151 Hulburt V. Emerson, 405 Hulett V. Inlow, 1024, 1919, 1941, 1945, 195c V. Nngent, 1310 Hulick V. Scovil, 2347 Huiings V. Guthie, 2120 Hull z/.Hull, 662, 1359 V. Culver, 488 Hull, Doe d., V. Greenhill, 1579 Hull, Doe d., V. Wood, loSo, 126^, 1306, 1320, 1325 Hullenbeck v, ^McDonald, 225 Hulme V. Tenant, 1373, 2012 Hulseman v. Griffiths, 2268 Hulsey v. Hulsey, 661 Hultain v. Munigle, 1274 Humas v. Scruggs, 931 Humberston v. Humberstou, 1693 Humble v. Bowman, 337 V. Langston, 1073 Hume V. Beale, 1661 V. Gossett, 1407, 1503 V. Horn, 645 V. Tenant, 1836 V. Taylor, 1044 Humes v. Scruggs, 792, 853, 915 V. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 631 Hummer v. Schott, 2008 Humphrey v. Brown, 1018 V. Phinney, 823, 841, 843 V. Wait, 1197 Humphreys z/. Brogden, 2231, 2232,2233,2234 V. Frank, 1317 V. Harrison, 576 z/. Hurd, 1999, 2063, 2094 V. Newman, 2121 Humphries v. Brogien, 64, 92, 93, 94, 199 V. Humphries, 539, 540, 1256, 1261, 1275 1281, 1324 V. Hoffman, 2296, 2298 V. Rogden, 66 V. Smith, 1323 Humphries, Den d., v. Humphries, 1303 Hungerford v, Anderson, 308 Hungunin v. Cochrane, 832 Hunnewell v. Taylor, igSi, 1982 Hunsucker v. Smith, 801 Hunt v. Acre, 733, 736, 2146 V. Adams, 1701 V. Allgood, 336 z'. Amidon, 1074, iioi V. Bailey, 1131, 1133, 1315, 1316, 1348 V. Bass, 1756, 1766, 1767 V. Bay State Iron Co., g6, 97, 116, 141, 142 V. Benson, 825 V, Browne, 1185 V. Coison, 1289 V. Comstock, g8i. 12S4 V. Cope, 1174 V. Crawford, 1756 V. Danforth, 1075 V. Ellison, 2175 V. Frazier, 2331 V. Hunt, 2, 806, 808, 8og, S.10, 1464, 1580, 2016, zoqi, 2094, 2095, 2096, 2097, 2102, 2321, 2363 V. Johnson, 647, 2315, 2358 V. Mattliews, 795 V. Maynard, 2184 cxlvi TABLE OF CASES. Rvferences are to pages. Hunt V. McConnell, 2155 V. Morton, 1131, 1135, 1254, 1255, 1319 1337 V. Moore, 1646 V. Mullanphy, 105, 108, 112, 116, 122, 135, 138, 144, 145 V. Rousmanier, 1804, 1830, 1840, 1843 V. Stiles, 2157 V. Thompson, 662, 771, 920, 1072, 1115, 1717. 1757.2257 7;. Watkins, 47, 509, 510, 511, 537, 539 V. Wing, 1245 V. Wolfe, 1 132 V. Wright, 1858, 1972, 1973 Hunter, Matter of, i486 Hunter z/. Bilyen, 1649 1/. Chrisman. 2298 V. Dennis, 2170 V. Fisher, 1757 V. GalUers, 1141 V. Jones, 1158, 1208, 1209 V. Macklaw. 2149 V. Martin, 1963 V. Osterhoudt, 1156, 1861, 1868 V. Parker, 1042 V. Potts, 368, 719, 753, 2057, 2288 V. Silvers, 1052 7f. Stembridge, 1629, 1631 V. Watsou, 292 V. Whitfield, 2272 V. Whitworth, 592, 593, 620, 623 Huntington z/. Allen, 2298 V, Asher, 2212, 2214 V. Legroes, 1947 V. Russell, J2I, 549, 553, 564, 1153 7/. Smith, 2104 Huntzinger v. Philadelphia Coal Co., 42 Kurd V. Cass, 585, 588, 670, 679, 1514 V. Coleman, 2174 V. Curtis, 1069, 1070 V. Cushing, 47:;, 477, 478, 481, 521 V. Grant, S61, 864, 867, 870 7/. Miller, 2271 zi. Robinson, 2027, 2029 V. Whitsett, 1315, 1316, 1327, 1329, 1331 Hurdle v. Outlaw, 2 Hurlbert v. Post, 992, 1169 Hurlburt v. Emerson, 414, 415 Hurlbut w. Post, 1128 Hurleman v. Hazlett, 708 Hurley v. Bannan, 2050 V. Estes, 1994 Hurly V. Bamed, 2048 Hum V. Keller, 2333 V. Soper, 2349 Huron College v. Wheeler, 2109 Hurrell, Doe d., v. Burrell, 309 Hurst V. Bell, 2020 V. McNeil, 1298, 1558, 1559 V. Rodney, 1075, 1117, 2262, 2263, 2264 V. Wilson, 2099 Hurtt v. Fisher, 76 Huss V. Stephens, 214, 672 Hussey v. Jewett, 1031 Husted*s Appeal, 840, 841 Huston "u. Curl, 1947 V. Markley, 1594, 1963 V. Neil, 824 V. Seeley, 733, 735 7'. Springer, i8gi V. Wickersham, 520 Hutching^s 7/. Carleton, 8og 7;. Dixon, 645, 653 V. Heywood, 298, 299, 1558, 1579, 1746 V. Hutchings, 759 V. Kimmell, 596, 751, 756 7'. Lee, 1616 7'. Lowe, 2308 Hutchins z'. Byrnes, 2013 V. Carleton, 2103, 2111 V. King, 54, 55, 2015, 2022, 20S0 V. Masterson, 103, 107,116, 117, 135, 20S0 Hutchins 71. Shaw, 129 V. State, 817 V. State Bank, 42, 43, 1835 Hutchinson. Re, 1591, 1824 Hutchinson's Case, 641 Hutchinson 71, Brown, 1033 V. Chase, 1969 7>. Copestake, 2246 7'. Dearing, 2064 V. Ford, 2020 V. Kay, 109. 120 V. Lloyd, 1714 V. Lord, 1714, 1724 V. Potter, 1274 V. Tindall, 1592 Hutchinson's Case v. Bradley's Case, 641 Hutchman 7). Waltam, 1993 Huth V. Carondelet, 1029, 1158 Huttemeier v. Albro, 2241 Hutton 7>. Benkard, 1807 V. Duey, 1561 V. Moore, 2007 Huxford V. Milligan, 397 Huxtep V. Brooman, 307 Huyck V. Andrews, 2211, 2215 Huyler v. Atwood, 2070, 2072 Huyser 7/. Chase, 1283, 1327, 1329, 1335, 1336 Hyatt 7/. Griffiths, 1316 V. James, 2059 V. Pugsley, 2297 V. Spearman, 1496, 1504 V. Wood, 1285, 1351, 1356 Hyde v. Barney, 686 V. Cookson, 62 71. Goodnow, 2056 V. Hyde, 1464 V. Hyden, 1648, 1700 V. Olds, 1794 V. Skinner, 1009 V. Stone, 1246, 1904, 1905, 1969 V. Warren, 2159 V. Woods, 74, 254, 274 Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 199 Hyman ?/. Devereaux, 2159, 2160 V. Devereux, 2105, 2107 7). Kelly, 1999 Hyndman v. Hyndman, 2055, 2163, 2168 Hynes v, McDermott, 596 V. Redington, 1721 I. laege 7*. Bossieux, 836, 838, 839, S61, 862, 882, 891, 909 Ibbetson 71. Beckwith,zo3 Iddings V. Bruen, 1769 V. Nagle, 1205, 1207 Ide V. Harwood, 3 V. Ide, 319, 322, 415, 416 Idle v. Cook, 372, 40S Iggulden V. May, 1008, 1009, 1098 Iglehart ?'. Crane, 2183 Iken V. Olenick, 1378, 1387, 1388, 1390, 1445 llderton v. Ilderton, 751 lies V. Martin, 1703 Illingworth v. Miltonberger, 1151 Illinois & Mich. Canal Co. v. Chicago, 197 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Thompson, 2261 Illinois Midland R. Co. v. People, loig Illinois F. Ins. Co. v. Station, 2114 Illinois R. Co. v. Indiana A. R. Co., 2361 Imboden 71. Hunter, 1770 Imlay 7/. Huntingdon, 1373, 1562, 1608, 1694 Imperial Fire Co. 71. Dunham, 2113 Importers & Traders' Ins. Co. v. Christie, 1143 Inches v. Leonard, 2093, 2094, 2146 Indiana Ins. Co. v. Coquillard, 2116 Indianapolis Manufacturers & Carpenters* Union v. Cleveland C. C. R. Co., nil, 1121, 1122, 1141 Ingalls V. Morgan, 2154, 2179, 2180 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxlvii Tngals V. Plamondon, 2235 Inge 7'. Boardman, 936 Ingersoll v. Ing^rsoll, 665 V. Sargeant, 2253 21. Sargent, 2262 V. Sawyer, 2i6g V. Sei-geant, 59, 251, 1071, 2253 Ingham z>. White, 646 Inglebright v. Hammond, 1209, i6gS Inglehart v. Arminger, 2007 V. Grain, 2153 V. Crane, 2180 Inglis V, Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, Ingraham v. Baldwin, 986, 987, 1148, 1213, 1309, 2345 21. Drennell, 224S ■V. Edwards, 1041 V. Fraley, 1593 V. Hutchinson, 2223 V. Kirkpatrick, 1795 7/. Wheeler, 1795 Ingram v. Little, 2339 f . Morris, 778 Inhabitants of Cheshire v. Inhabitants of Shutesbury, 2021 Inhabitants of Reading v. Inhabitants of Weston, 2046, 2047 Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Inhabitants of Stow, 202 V. Jones, 61, 62, 63 Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 70, 71 Inhabitants of Windham v. Portland, 737 Inmau z/. Jackson, 335, 1810, Innes v. Crawford, 1925, Innis Z'-. Campbell, 522 /« re Commercial Bulletin Co., 2263 /« re Fowler, 2260 /« re Frith, 1974 J« re Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 2237 /n re Locke, 2253 /« re Roper, 1836 Insurance Co. v. Addicks, 206S V. Scott, 120 r International Life Assoc. Co. v. Commissioners of Texas, 1554 International Life Ins. Co. &. Scales, 2123 Inwood V. Twine, 1022 Ireland v. NichoUs, 1058, 1155, 1156 V. Woolman, 2153 Ireson v. Wenn, 1250 Ironsides z*. Ironsides, 633 Irvin's Appeal, 291 Irvin V. Armistead, 711 V. Greever, 682, 699, 1640 V. Wood, irgg, 1202 Irvine v. Dunham, 1659 V. Hanlin, 1894, 1895 V. Irvine, 2301 7J. Marshall, 1585, 1639, 1652, 1661 •V. Scott, 1304 V. Sullivan, 1628 Irving z/. Richardson, 2089 Irvins zi. Irvins, 865 Irwin's Appeal, 1734 Irwin V. Bank of United States, 59, 251 V. Govode, 479, 494, 495, 561, 811, 812 V. Cox, 1336, 1337 V. Dixion, 572 v. Dunwoody, 414 ■V. Ivers, 778, 1610,11638, 1641, 1696, 1697, i6g_9 V. Lewis, 1499- Isaac V. Clarke, 1213 Isaacs -ZI. Gearheart, 1309 Jsenliart v. Brown, 936 Isham V. Bennington Iron Co., 2013, 2342, 2366 V. Delaware & L. R. Co., 1792 V. Iron Co.. 42 Isherwood v. Oklknow, lo^o Isom 71. First National Bank, 1777 Israel v. Israel, 1894 1st V. Morgan, 1292 Ivas, Re, iitt Ive 7', King, 1884 Iverson v. Shorter, 1511 Ives, Ke, 1114 Ives V. Ashley, 1776 V. Davenport, 183 1, 1832 V. Ives, 1282, 1356 V. Mills, 1461, 1490 V. Sawyer, 1349. 2346 V. Williams, 1131, 1317 Ivey V. Lalland, 2056 Ivie 7J. Ivie, 491 Ivimey 71. Stocker, 2226. 2229, 2244 Ivory V. Burns, 1592, 1797 Izard V. Bodine, 1894 Izon V. Gordon, 1343 V. Gorton, 1083, 1177, 1179, 1200, 1254, 2270 Jack V. Dougherty, 2348, 2349 V. Nabor, 136 Jackling, Denn d, v.. Cartwright, 1334 Jackman 71. Hallock, 2007 7'. Ringland, 1647 Jacks V. Dyer, 718, 733, 733, 739 Jackson 71. Adams, 215 V. Aldrich, 1269, 1284, 1285, 1293 V. Allen, J058, i86r, 1862, 1868, 2364 V. Andrews, 564, 2322, 2331 V. Ashburner, 991, 993 7'. Babcock, 338, 2213 7'. Bain, 2272 V. Ball, 535 V. Kateman, 1613 V. Bard, 2353 V. Beach, 236 V. Berner, 2296, 2297 7>. Billinger, 415 V. Birner, 2297 w. Blodget, 2107 V. Blodgett, 2111 V. Bowen, 2029, 2303 V. Bradt, 973, 1255, 1261, 1269, 1271, 1278, 1293, 1320 V. Brown, 2014, 2016 71. Brownson, 555, 557, 558, 2000 V. Brush, 1625 V. Bryan, 1256, 1271, 1280, 1299, 1319, 1337 z/. Bull, 340, 342, 343 71. Burtis, 1813 ,7* Cairnes, 1364 V. Carswell, 1999 V. Carry, 1556, 1559 V. Catlin, 1543 •v. Cator, t;64 V. Churchill, 865, 866, 867, 868, 915, 916, 917, 918 V. Chrysler, 1868 V. Clark. "1755 V. Cleveland, 1646 V. Coleman, 1815 V. Collins, 1144, 1154 V. Cooley, 13 14 v. Coombs, 1023 V. Crafts. 2 13 1 V. Crcigiiton, 1380 V. Crysler, 1861 71. Cuerder 1149 V. Davis, T149, 1217, 1348 7>. Deese, 1980 V. Delacroix, looi V. Delancey, 2065 V. Delancy, 202, 307, 311, 1149 7J. Dewitt, 829, 2074, 2182 V. Dillon, 2318, 2348 v, Dobbin, 1223 cxlviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Jackson v. Dominick, 2060 V, Dubois, 2077 V. Dunsbagh, 236, 237, 830, 1569, 2318, 2319, 2320 V. Dysling, 2247 V. Eddy, 1 128, 1168, 1 169 V. Edwards, 726, 746, 747, 886, 887, 893, 1808, 1809 V. Ellis, 1273 V. Estey, 2335 ^ V. Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Com- pany, 729, 1092 V. Feller, 1648, 1653 V. Ferris, 1730, 1810, 1814, 1843 V. Fitzsimmons, 217 V. French, 1270 V. Gardner, 1160 V. Gamsey, 202 V. . Given, 1663 V. Graham, 202 V. . Groat, 255 V. . Harder, 1976 V. . Harris, 332. 34^, 342, 343 V. . Harrison, 1060, 1061, 1123, 1138, 1150, V. I '54, "55. 1204 V. . Harsen, 970, ggo, 1108 V. . Hartwell, 1540, 1555 V. . Hathaway, 89 V. Hendricks, 359 V. . Henry, 2159 V. . Hinman, 1222 V . Hixon, 865, 878 V. . Hobbhouse, 252, 257 V. . Hodges, 652 V. . Holloway, 1368 V. . Howe, 207, 209 •V. . Hubble, 2322, 2323 V. . Hughes, 1266, 1306, 1313, 1337 . Hull, 2077 V. V. . Ingraham, iS, 195, ig6 V. . Jackson, 1633, 1640, 1884 V. . Jansen, 1810 •V. . Johnson, 693 V. . Joy, 212, 2295 . King, 1034, 2345 V. . Kipp. 764, 780, 1060 V. , Kniffen, 234 V. . Lawrence, 2168, 2170 V. . Leonard, 2299 V. . Littell, 2301 V. . Lodge, 2045, 2050 V. . Losee, 2152 •u. . Lunn, 216, 2014, 2347 V, . Massachusetts Mut. Fire Ins. Co., V. 2115, 2116, 2118 v. . McCall, 517 •V. . McConnell, 1024, 1940 V. . McKenny, 237, 2319, 2320, 2358 V. . McLeod, 1310, 1355 V. . Mancius, 1142 V. . Martin, 340, 342 •u. . Matsdorf, 1640, 1647, 1740, 1764, 1777 V. . Mayo, 103 1 •u. . Mersereau, 2099 V. . Merrill, 305* 307, 309. 312.331, 335, 34°, V. 341, 342, 1770 Jackson . Meyers, 281, 285, 477, 521, 522 Jackson . Miller, 1271, 1290 Jackson . Moore, 1723 Jackson . Morse, 1614, 1635, 1638, 1641, 1648 Jackson . Mowrey, 2260 Jackson . Newton, 211 V. . Neeley, 2359 Jackson . Newcastle, 2248 Jackson . Odell, nog, 11 68 Jackson . O'Donaghy, 874 Jackson . Parker, 202, 975, 2295 . Parkhurst, 1346, 1347, 1350 Jackson . Patterson, 1133, 1135, 1316 Jackson . Pesked, 553 Jackson , Phillips, 1685 Jackson . Phipps, 1016, 2034 Jackson Jackson V. Pierce, 1261, 1713, 1742 Pixley, 517 Porter, 2296 Post, 2364 Price, 517 Richards, 2045 Robbins, 317, 319, 337, 33* Robins, 1S15 Rogers, 209, 1145, 1266, 1273, 1280, 1286 RounesviUe, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 83 Rowland, 1149 Salmon, 1134, 1254, 1315, 1318, i334 Sample, 1287 Schauber, i6og, 1663 Schoonmaker. 210, 2338, 2355 Scliultz, 245. 267 Scissam, 1223 Sebring, 2316 Sellick, 605 Sharp, 212, 2295 Shauber, 2094 Sheldon, 2353 Shelton, 1423, 1424, 1505 Shepard, 2335 Schultz, 263 Silvernail, 255, 1204 Slyck, 1707 Smith, iSgS Spear, 1217 Sprague, 2357 Staats, 322, 340 Stackhouse, 2129 Stautts, 237 Stephens, 2295 , Sternbergh, 161 5 , Stevens, 1643, 1940, 1952 Stoats, 2319 Swart, 237 , Thomas, 2296 Tibbits, 1897, 1917 Todd, 2343 Topping, 266, 555, 564, 565, 1139, i8s9, 1862 Torrence, 1949 Trullinger, 2211 Van Zandt, 227, 228, 401, 471 Veeder, 1807 , Vincent, 970, 1140 , Walker, 1747 , Walsh, 176S , Warren, 1998, 2076, 2157 , Waters. 18, 2297 Welden, 1149 . Wells, 533 Westerfieid, 267 , Wheat, 2295. 2296, 2297 Whedon, 1148, 1213 Whitbeck, 1915 Willard, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2107 . Williard, 2103, 2104 Wilsey, 1269, 1293, 1299, 1319, 1344. , Winne, 752 , Wood, 517, 2094, 2174, 2318 , Woodman, 209 d. Henderson v. Davenport, 1843 d. Van Vechten v. Sill, 2047 ex d. Allen v. Florence, 2318 exd, Anderson 71. McLeod, 1350 ex d. Ballou v. Campbell, 2101 ex d. Barclay v. Blodgett, 2099 Hopkins, 2097 ex d. Bartolmew v. Hughes, 1307 ex d. Bauers v. Crafls, 1869 ex d. Rayard v. Blodget, 2101 ex d. Beekman v. Sellick, 600, 602, 603, 612, 613, 806 ex d. Benson v. Matsdorff, 830 exd. Benton v. Langhhead, 1076, 1269 ex d. Blanchard 7k Allen, 1155, 1156 ex d. Bleecker v. Whitford, 1213, 1223 ex d. Bogert v. Schauber, 1806, 1810 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxlix Jackson ex d. Bradstreet v. Huntington, 211, 212 Jackson ex d. Pratt v. Tibbitts, 1913, 1914, 1916 Jackson ex d. Erayton v, Burchin, 9S5, 986 Jackson ex d. Brouck 71. Crysler, 1861 Jackson ex d. Brown v. Hininan, 1148 Jackson ex d. Browne v. Hinman, 114S Jackson ex d. Bush v. Coleman, 338 Jackson ex d. Cadwallader v. Walsh, 2163 Jackson ex d. Caldwell v. King, 986 Jackson ex d. Campbell v. HoTloway, 1025 Jackson ex d. Church v. Brownson, 543, 544, 806 z>. Miller, 1256, 1344. 1807 Jackson ex d. Clark v. O'Douaghy, 717, 718, 834 Jackson ex d. Clows 7/. Vanderheyden, 718, 733, 736. 739. 1215 Jackson ex d. Colden i'. Brownell, 1238 Jackson ex d. Colton v. Harper, 1213, 1220, 1222, 1223 Jackson ex d. Corilandt v. Parkhurst, 1354 Jackson ex d. Culverhouse z'. Beach, 1657 Jackson ex d. Curtis v, Bronson, 2100, 2101, 21 II Jackson ex d. Davy v. De Walts, 1223 Jackson ex d. Dunbar v. Todd, 1031 Jackson ex d. Erwin v. Moore, 514, 1588, 1590, 1923 Jackson ex d. Gansevoort v. Lunn, 1656, 1657 Jackson ex d. Gillespy v. Woolsey, 517 Jackson ex d. Gouch v. Wood, 501 Jackson ex d. Gratz v. Catlin, 1544 Jackson ex d. Hammond v. Veedcr, T823 Jackson ex d. Hardeiiburgh v. Schoonmaker, 489, 514, 630 Jackson ex d. Harris v. Harris, 536 Jackson ex d. Haverly v. French, 1309 Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Babcock, 302, 306, 311, 1815 Jackson ex d. Hopkins z>. Leek, 2318 Jackson exd. Houseman v. Sebring, 2316, 2318 Jackson ex d. Hudson . Spear, 1160 Jackson ex d. Sitzer v. Wallermire, 712 Jackson ex d. Smith zi. Adams, 672, 673, 1657 V. Stewart, 1213, 1268, 1272 Jackson ex d. Stansbury 7>. Farmer, 1356 Jackson ex d. Stevens zi. Silvernail, iio4j v. Stevens, 1074, 1930 Jackson ex d. Stewart ?'. Kingsley, 1283 Jackson ex d. Stoutenburg ?'. Murray, 518 Jackson ex d. Suffern 7/. McConnell, 1024, 1930, 1931. 1933' 1945 Jackson ex d. Swartwout zl Johnson, 489, 513, 51:7. 589. 590. 592, 593. 598,602,603, 604, 605, 607, 608, 612, 614,621,622, 623, 624, 629, 630, 602, 2291 Jackson ex d. Ten Eyck z>. Richards, 48S, 1016 Jackson ex d. Totten v. Spell, 71S, 733, 734, 736, 739- 741 Jackson ex d. Trowbridge -u. Dunsbagh, 1566, 20S4, 2120. 2358 Jackson ex d. Van Allen 71. Rogers, 1270 Jackson ex d. Van Cortlandt v. Parkhurst, 1270, 1271. 1355 Jackson ex d. Van Denburg t, Rradt, 1270, 1271 Jackson ex d. Van Rensellaer v. Andrew, 565 V. Collins, 488, 1146, 1148 Jackson ex d. Van Schaick 7>. Davis, jio8 v. Vincent, 1140, 11441 im*^' 1^49 Jackson ex d. X'iely?/. Guerden, 1273 Jackson exd. Wadworth 7'. Wendell, 501 Jackson ex d. Wallace v. Carpenter, 985, 986, 1030, 1 05 1 Jackson ex d. Walsh v. Colden, 2120 Jackson ex d- Webber t. Hareen. 981, 2314 Jackson ex d. Weidman 7/. Hubble, 1074 Jackson ex d. Weldon 7' Harrison, 1104, 1107, 1155 Jackson ex d. Wells v. Wells, 536 Jackson ex d. AVhitbeck v. Deyo, 1282 Jackson ex d. White z>. Cary, 1557 Jackson ex d. Wliittick v. Deigo, 1309 Jackson ex d. Williams ?'. Miller, 1108, 1113, 114S. 1348, 1586, 1638, 1645, i6g6 Jackson ex d. Wills v. Stiles, 1148, 1213,1218 Jackson ex d. Winthrop z'. Ingraham, 2276 Jackson ex d. V/ood z'. Salmon, 1 135, 1307 7'. Swart, 1063, 2316, 2319, 2320, 2362 Jacob V. Rice, 634 V. State, 706 Jacobs V. Allard, 2225 V. Miller, i9r9, 1932 7'. Turpin, 2155 Jacomb 7/. Harwood, 1021 Jacoway ?/. Gault, 2037, 2364 V. McGarrah, 718, 737, 838 Jacques z'. Edgell, 1766 V. Ennis, 630, 949, 652 V, M. E. Church, 2012 V. Short, 1075, 2262, 2359 Jacquith v. Hudson, 1872 Jaffe V. Hr.rteau, 1054, 1066, mo, 1126, 1175 v. Skae, 2257 Jaggers v. Estes, 282 Jakques 7/. Millar, 999 Jamaica 7*. Hart, 1139 Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp. v. Chandler, 283, 969, 2211, 2245 James' Claim, 416 James v. Allen, 1638, 1683 V. Bion, 2i6g 7/, Cowing, 1703 V. Crawford, 3304 cl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. James v. Dean, 1294, 1708 V. Dubois, Den ex d., 401, 448, 450, 475 V. Field, 8di V. Finney, 994 V. Frearson, 1733 V. Fulcrod, 1697, 1699 V. Fuste, 2140 V, Hubbard, 2154 V, Jacques, 2177 •a. Johnson, 809, 2096, 2109, 2110, 2121 V. Johnston, 2(542 V. Mayrant, 1375 V. Mooray, 520 V. Morey, 692, 803, 80S, 809,810,811, 1047, 1163, 1164, 1579, 1580, 2095, 2096, 2097, 2109, 2110, 2121 V. Patterson, 1215, 1284 V. Rice, 2002 V. Roberts, 2060 V. Rowan, 763 V. Thomas, 2057 7*. Worcester, 2086 Jameson v. Smith, 1605, 1806, 1810 Jamieson v. Bruce, 1997, 1998, 2076 Jamison v. Glasscock, 1577, 1620, 1644, 1766, 1769, 1707 V. Graham, 1922 Janes v. Janes, S83 V. Jenkins, 2223, 2224 V. Throckmorton, 1783 Janesan v. Janeson, '2302 Jansey -v. McCahill, 1044 January v. January, 1517 V. Martin, 175S Jaques v. Gould, 1181, 2251, 2259 V, Methodist Episcopal Church, 1373 •V. Miller, 1017 V. Weeks, 2031, 2120, 2168 Jarboe v. Maulry, 999 Jardain v. Savings Fund Assoc, 1428 Jarechi v. Philharmonic Society, log, 121, 135, T38. 139 Jarmon v. Wiswall, 2166 Jarratt v. McDaniel, 2020 V. Steele, 29 Jarstadt v. Smith, 2241 Jarvis v. Brooks, 130, S24 V. Dutcher, 2002, 2003, 2015, 2120 V. Moe, 1391, 1392, 1457, 1465, 1504, 1576 V. Prentice, 1576 V. Woodruff, 2174, 2175 V. Wyatt, 439 Jason w. Eyres, 216S Jasper v. Maxwell, 1577 Jaycox V. Collins, 670 Jecko V. Taussig, 22S Jee V. Audley, 407 Jefferson v. Coleman, 2151 Jeiferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1516 Jefferson Ins. Co. v, Cotheal, 2115 Jefferson Medical College Case, 2254 Jeffords. Ringgold, 1031 Jeffreys. Honywood, 324, 325 V. Neale, 1102 Jeffries v. Whittick, Doe d., 1309 V. Williams, 94 Jeliett V. Rhode, 1323 Jencks v. Alexander, 779, 1658, 1843 Jeneson v. Jeneson, 2151 V. Graves, 1612 Jenki is v. Clement, 304, 305, 306, 309, 335 V. Compton, 1821 V. Continental Ins. Co., 2137, 2138, 2172 V. Eldridge, 992, -1616, 1644, 2046, 2048, 2049 V. Fahey, 21, 640, 1981, 1986 V. Freyer, 1980,2154 V. Frink, 1619, 1622, 1738 V. Gething, 120, 126 V. Green, 2083 V. Harrison, 1485 V. Holt, 897, 964 Jenkins v, Hopkins, 1003 V. Jenkins, 282, 721, 756, 769, 799, 1060, * 1061, 2256 •V. Jones, 2161 V. Kemishe, 1626 V. McCurdy, 100 V. Pye. 1639 V. Redding, 1288 V. Smith, 2148 V. Stetson, 2031, 2033 V. Volz, 1425 V. Walter, 1719 V, Young, 1553, 1556, 1557 Jenks V. Backhouse, 18S5, 1968 V. Central Ins. Co., 2073 V. Ward, 729, 1092, 1093 Jenne v. Marble, 647, 648 Jenner v. Clegg, 2252 V. Morgan, 1172 V. Turner, 270 Jenners v. Howard, 1032, 1033 Jenness z/. Robinson, 1921 Jennings v. Alexander, 1107, 1124, 1132 V. Bragg, 1034 V. Conboy, 1807, 1808, 1809 V. Jennings, 2154 V. McComb, 995, 996, 998, 1262, 1284, 1 3 OS V. Smith, 75 V. Teague, 1842 V. Ward, 2051 Jennison v. Hapgood, 30T, 814, 817, 1455, 2163 V. Walker, 2218, 2228, 2245, 2247 Jennor v. Hardie, 1816 Jenny zk Andrews, 1821, 1825 V. Jenny, 728, 794, 893, 913, 1576 Jepson zi. Patrick, 1718 Jerman v. Orchard, 2358 Jerome v. McCarter, 2149 Jerritt v. Weare, 210 Jervaise v. Clark, 1037 Jervis v. Berridge, 554 V. Bruton, 442, 443 Jervoise v. Northumberland, 1693 Jeslyn v. Wyman, 2128 Jessen z/. Swelgert, 1197, 1198 Jesser v. Gifford, 553 Jessup V. Bridge, 2018 Jesus College v. Bloom, 577 Jeter v. Fellowes, 368, 2058, 2289 V. Hewitt, 1516 V. Penn, 1237, 1239 Jew V. Wood, 1 148 Jewell's Estate, 504, 509 Jewell V. Warner, 252, 396, 401, 402, 447, 470 Jewett V. Bailey, 2043 V. Berry, 105 1 V. Brock, 1451 V. Burroughs, 234 ZK Davis, 591 V. Draper, 2068, 2069, 2070 %!. Hussey, 2298 V. Jewett, 2246, 2247 V. Keenholts, 47 V. Miller, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1770 V. Ricker, 2361 V. Siddons, 976 Jewett's Trustees v. Perrette, 1981 Jiggetts V. Davis, 416, 447. 472 V. Jiggetts. 794, 795, 913, 914 Jdlson V. Wilcox, 405, 416 Joar V. Hodeg, 299 Jobe V. O'Brien, 2181 Jochen v. Tibbells, 1219 Joel V. Mills, 1677 Joest 71. Williams, lo'^'^ John & Cherry St., Re, 2327, 2328 Johns V. Church, 2027, 2028, 2029 7/. Johns, 42, 45, 817 V. Reardon, 882, goo, 2122 Johnson's Appeal, 2282 Johnson's Petition, 278, 279 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cH Johnson v. Baker, 2354 V. Eantock, 2323 V. Bartlett, 2102 V. Bates, 2263, 2264 v. Bean, 210 V. Beasley, 2358 V. Beauchamp, 1276 r-. Bennett, 75, 76 7'. Blydenburgh, 2016 V. Boyles, 2349 V. Bradley, 666 V. Branch, 2354 V. Brown, 2148 ZK Burford, 1947 V. Candage, 2074. 20-'!;. ->ni3 V. Carter, 1023, 1352, 221^ v. Carpenter, 2109 V. Clark, 2051 T'. Collhis, 1095 z'. Connecticut Eank, 1746 V. Cornet, 2103, 2111 V. Crowley, 2071 V. Cummings, 66g V. Cummins, 588, 678, 679, 1361, 2012 v. Gushing, 1825 V. Delony, 1592, i6go V. Dixon, 1202 7'. Donnell,, 2142, 2144 z'. Dougherty, 1622 v. Elking, 1427 I/. Elkins, 1430 V. Elliot, 858 V. Elwood, 2336 V. Fleet, 1574, 1582, 158.^, i6ji, 1612 V. Fritz, 656, 678, 679, 684, 695 7'. Futch, 2258 v. Gallagher, 2013 V. Gaylord, 1521 v. Gurley, 1138, 1150 ». Hannahan, 1351, 1357 v. Harmon, 2174 V. Hart, 195, 236, i933j 1939, 2107 V. Harris, igog. 1919 V. Harrison, 1451 z/. Hines, 432, 22^0 V. HoUfield, 16S6, 1687 z'. Hoffman, 1231 V. Hosford, 2074, 2171 z/. Houston, iggg, 2078 V. Johnson, 297, 328, 411, 420, 422, 541, 542, 543, 54S> 546, 552» 556, 557, 558, 575, 715. 757. 758, Sgg, 958, 1254, 1256, 1259, 1262, 1275, 1281, 1294, 130s* '320, 1548, 1551, 1639, 1652,2331 V. Jones, 1923, 1928 V. Jordan, 2207, 2224 V. Kerman, 307, 310. 312 7/. Kessler, 1425, 1426 v. Leman, 1751 V. Leonards, 79g, 2076, 2100 z;. May, 1424, 1425 V. Mcintosh, 14, 196, 197 V. McGrew, 2004 V. Miller, 791, 892, 1240, 2066, 2087 s*. Monell, 2068, 2069, 2150 z/. Morse, 731, 734, 848, 851 z/. Morton, 331, 333 V. Moore, 741 V. Moser, 1420 V. Mosier, 1435 z/. Muzzy, 1063 z>. Nash, 22gg . v. Neil, 847,851, 852 7/. Neill. 856 z>. Nyce, 730 z/. Oppenheim, 2223 V. Packer, 1030 z>. Parcels, 831 V. Parley, 807. 841 ». Phcenix Life Ins. Co., 999 z/. Plume, 760, 763 z/. Quarles, 1646 Johnson 7/. Rankin, 2325 z/. Rayner, 2021 V. Rice, 2176, 2184 V. Richardson, 21, 976, 1424, 1425 V. Rogers, 646 V. Ronald, 1590 V. Shank, 1184 z/. Sherman, iioS, nog, 1117, 2050, 2129, 2264, 2265 v. Shields, 731, 733, 736, 739 V. Skillman, 2213 z/. Smith, 504, 1 120, 2045 7/. Stagg, 2036, 212), 2365 V. State, 755 V. Stewart, 1274 V. Stillings, 647 V. Sundry Articles of Mdse., 1456 V. Swains, 1904 V. Tatlinger, 135 V. Taylor, 1408, 1472, i486 V. Thomas, 874, 875 zf. Thompson, 2071 V. Thwatt, 1625 z: Thweatt, 1777 V. United States, 2306 •V. Watson, 688 V. Watts, 1349 V. White, 2081, 2187 V. Whiton, 234 z/. Williams, 2153, 2178, 2180 zf. Wilson, ig77 V. Wiseman, 131, 133 z/. Zink, 215a Johnson's Exrs. v. Wiseman's Exrs., 112, 113, 115, 121, 127, 128, 136 Johnston v. Bates, 1159, 2263, 2265 V. Bush, 1466 V, Donvan, 2151 z/. Eason, 1756 zf. Gray, 1996, 1997,2050,2051 z>. Gwathmey, 1777 7*. Hargrove, 1154 Zf. Harmon, 2158 V. Hastie, 1194, 1195 z/. Humphrey, 17S2 z>. Johnston, 647 z'. Martin, 1384 7>. Morrow, 2021 V. Riddle, 2065 V. Turner, 1407, 1410, 141 1 1 zi. Van Dyke, 725, 842, 844, 893 2/. Zane's Trustees, 247, 254, 1748 Johnstone v. Huddlestone, 1162, 1254, 1308, 1343 z/. Hull, 1185 Johnstown Cheese Mfg. Co. v. Veghte, 2226 Johnstown Iron Co. z/. Cambria Iron Co., 88, 2189 Jones' Appeal, 595, 1732, 1734 Jones, /r jr iarie, 456 Jones's Will, 249 Jones V. Andover, 2104 V. Bacon, 318, 1814 V. Barclay, 1955 ZI. Barmbelt, 533 V. Barter, 588, 1058, V. Bennett, 2285 7'. Berkshire, 2038 V. Bird, 2232 V. Blumenstein, 1456 1138 V. Brandon, 1513, 1516 V. Brewer, 716, 718, 737, 739, 835, 849,851, 854, 860, 861 V. Bright, 1200 V. Britton, 1451 V. Brown, 645, 655, 678, 683 V. Bush, 1574 V. Butler, 1031 V. Cable, 1882 V. Caldwell, 76 V. Candage, 214S clii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Jones V. Carter, 1862 V. Chandler, 1932, 1952 V. Chapelle, 565 V. Chappell, 549 •u. ChesapeakCj etc., R. Co., 1869 V. Chiles, 210 V. Clark, 1149, 2065 V. Clerk, 1294 V. Clifton, 647 V. Cohen, 1904, 1905 V. Conde, 2009, 2158 u. Crane, 1969 %i. Crittenden, 1517 V. Crow, 2242 V, Davies, 592, 624, 633, 670 V. Davis, 2243 &. Detroit Chair Co., 106,122, 132, 133, 134, 1 164 v. Devore, 8gi V. Dexter, 1620, 1622 V. Doe, 1857, i860 V. Dougherty, 1703, 1794 V. Fenno, 2045 V. Fleming, 769 V. Flint, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54 V. Fritchey, 1033 V. Gardner, 729, 730, 1092, 1093, 1094 V. Gerock, 720, 86g, 877 V. Goff, 1485 V. Gibbons, 2109, 2110 V. Gillman, 2156 V, Green, 1872 V, Gregg, 2038 V. Guaranty & I. Co., 2023 V. Guedrin, 2254 V. Gundrin, 1925 V. Habersham, 257, 1657, 1659 V. Harraden, 1967 V. Harridan, 1896 V. Harris, 1373 V. Hart, 1499 V. Hill, 2258 V. Hockman, 2296, 2297 V. Hughes, 815, 820, 826, 888 V. Hunt, 504 V. Hunter, 757 V. Hurst, 1806 V. Hutchinson, 1276, 2261 V. Jones, 236, 345, 445, 577, 751, 757, 759, 769, 850, 853, 856, 957, 959, 1259, 1269, 1277, 1282, 1290, 1754, 1768, 1822, 2005, 2025, 2334, 2349, 2353 V. Doe d. Jones, 1261, 1275 V. Jones' Exrs., 340 V, Lackland, 2252, 2259 V. Lapham, 2002, 2150 V. Lewis, 1664, 1725, 1728 V. Lipton, 2270 V. Lloyd, j6go V. Lock, 1739 V. Maffett, 1788 V. Manley, 733, 736, 739, 838 . "v. Massey, 1S94, 1S95 V. Morgan, 446 V. Marcey, 997 V. Mills, 1308, 1311, 1331, 1336, 1337, 1341, 1342 V. Morgan, 421, 425, 443, 1693 V. McDougal, 1676 •v. McKee, 1701 V. McMasters, 1657, 2014 V. Myrick, 2155, 2180 V. Neil, 865 V. Nixon, 1314 1). Oberclaim, 648 •V. Patterson, 870, 1364 V. Percival, 2205, 2208 V. Perry, 2324, 2329, 2331, 2332, 2333 V. Phelps, 2124, 2125 V. Porter, 211, 2297, 2298 V. Potter, 1920, 1933 V. Powell, 880, 898, 918, 944, 952, 954 Jones V. Price, 1818 V. Read, 2235 V. Redder, 1623 V. Reddick, 758 V. Reed, 1060, 1151, 1154, 115S V. Rice, 1817 V. Richardson, 2020 V. Roberts, 794 V. Robin, 2194 V. Roe, 1571, 1572, 1849 1;. Salter, 270 V. Say, 300, 1606 V. Say and Seal, 1560 V. Shay, 1264, 127S, 12S0 V. Sherrard, 509, 511, 519, 746, 2182 V. Slubey, i6gi V. Smith, 1773, 1776, 2110 V. Stanton, 1990 V. Statham, 2049 V. Steinberg, 2166 V. Tapling, 2246 V. Timmons, 46 V. Tipton, 1276, 2261 V. Todd, 90S z;. Towne, 33, 36, 39, 40 V. Trawick, 2047 V. Vemey, 1039 V. Wagner, 91, 92, 2233, 2237 V. Walker, 1869 V. Webster, 2271 V. Weed, 2157 V. Whinnipeack Bank, 2101 V. Whitehead, 566 V. Williams, 2093 V. Willis, 13 19, 1324, 1327, 1329 v. Wilson, i6go V. Winwood, 1S44 V. Wood, 1837 V. Yoakam, 1488 V. Zoller, 769 Jones' Admr. v. Smith, 984 Jones' Assignee v. Clifton, 1825 Jones, Ex parte^ v. Stiles, 1533 Jongsma v. Jongsma, 202, 307 Joor V. Hodges, 1553 Jooss V. Fey, 1941 Jordan v. Cheney, 2095, 2108, 2148 V. Clark, 771 V. Corey, 2346 V. Forlong, 811 V. Godman, 1449, 1450, 1455, 1461, 1469, 1478 V. Holkman, 271 V. Mead, 1262 V. Money, 1701 V. Peak, 1488, 1490 V. Pollock, 2354 V. Roache, 321,402, 423, 447, 448, 470 V. Savage, 932, 955 V. Smith, 2133 V. Staples, 1233 V. Stevens, 2319 V. Stickland, 1411 V. Wilker, 1025 Jorden v. Jorden, 2260 Jordon v. Attwood, 2208, 2209 Joseph V. United States, 290 Joslin V, Rhoades, 1815 Joslyn V. Joslyn, 1904 V. Parlin, 2101 7'. Wyman, 2127, 2134, 2140 Josselyn v. Edwards, 2150 ■V. McCabe, 122, 123, 142, 145 Jourdan v. Jourdan, 2346 Journeay v. Brackley, 1108, 1114, 1115 V. Gibson, 904 Joy V. Campbell, 1733 V. McKay, 1293 Joyce V. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 1400 Joyner v. Conyers, 493 V. Speed, 713, 723, 737, 742, 806 V. Statham, 2035 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clii 111 Judd V. Arnold, 1018, 1041 V. Bushnell, 1847, 1850 V. Fairs, 13 19 V. Lawrence. 672, 673 V. Mosely, 1643 V. Seekins, 810, 2097 Judson V. Dada, 2072 V. Gibbons, 178S Julian V. Boston, C. F. & N. B. R. Co., 884 V. Woodsmall, 71, 72 Juliand v. Rathbone, 1795 Jumel V. Jumel, 2178, 2179, 2180 Junction R. Co. v. Harris, 590, 665, 1363, 1369 Justice V, Lowe. 1141 Juzanx &. Toulmin, 1716, 1717, 1728, 1735 K. Kabley v. Worcester Gas Light Co., 992, 1000, lOOI Kade v. Lauber, 759, 772, 821 Kahn v. Gumberts, 1623 V. Lovez, 1 196 Kain v. Fisher, 723, 724, 821 V. Hoxie, 1073, iiig, 1121, 1129 Kaiser z*. Seaton, 1503 Kalis w. Seaton, 1 197, 1198 Kalshmer z'. Upton, 2137, 2171 Kamena v. Huelbig, 2100 Kampf u. Jones, 322, 324, 1692 Kane v. Bloodgood, 1615, 1781 V. Goot, 75, 1549, 1680, 1681, 1798 V. Mink, 1280, 1285 V. Sanger, 1093 V. Vanderburgh, 572 Kane County v. Herrington, 924 Kansas City Elevator Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 1140, 1154 V. Union Pac. R. Co., 1139, 1155 Kansas City Land Co. v. Hill, 2162 Kansas City, S. & M. R. v. Weaver, 493 Karnes v, Lloyd, 1998, 2077 Kashaw v. Kasliaw, 636 Kasterz/. McWilliams, 1420, 1433, 1459 Kastor v. Newhouse, 1191, 1201, 1202 Kauffelt V. Bower, 2004, 2005 Kaufman z'. Crawford, 17 16 V. Myers. 2254 V. Peacock, 818 Kavanagh v, Gudge, 1138 Kavish, Ex parte, 1432 Kay V. Jones, 905 V. Scates, 4i5j 417. 418, 421, 500, 1603, 1607, 1655, 1673, 1674, 1694 V. Whittaker, 2148, 2149 Kean v. Connelly, 1894 V. Hoffecker, 2279, 2288 Kearly v. Duncan, 136 Kearney v. Kearney, 534, 563 V. Macomb, 1754. 2044 V. McComb, 2053 V. Taylor, 1774, 2333 Kearney's Executors v. Kearney, 506, 513 Kearsley v. Woodcock, 1677 Keates v. Cadogan, mo Keating -v. Congdon, 1249, ^250 Keating Implement & Machine Co. v. Marshall Elec. L. &P. Co., 45 Keaton v. Cobb, 1774, 1766 V. Terry, 1989 V. Thomasson's Lessee, 1285 Keats V. Hugo. 2223, 2224 V. Rector, 2172 Keay z/. Goodman, 1120, 1126, 1347, 1350, 1352 V. Goodwin, 1976, 2074 Keble v. Thompson, 1608, 1733, 1735 Keckeley v. Keckeley, 802 Keeble v. Cummings, 1032 Keech v. Hall, 1169, 2074 V. Sanford, 1623 Keech d. Wame v. Hall, 1279 Keegan v. Cox, 201 1 V. Grahty, 2283 Keeler v. Talwell, 908 V. Davis, 1 139 V. Eastman, 555, 556 V. Fassett 1023 V. Keeler, 121 V. Tatnell, gog Keely v. Harrison, 774 V. O'Connor, 976, 1201 Keemler v. Ferguson, 2349 Keen z'. Hartman, 924 Keenan v. Keenan, 217 Keene v. Munn, 2154,2179, 2180 Keene d. Byron v. Deardou, 1743 Keepers, etc., Harrow School v. Alderton, 572 Keiffer v. Barney, 1399, 1402 V. Starii, 2024 Keir V. Peterson, 83. 84, 88, 494, 561, 983 Keisel V. Earnest, 136, 1905 Keith V. Horner, 2004, 2007 v. Hyndman, 1388 V. Reynolds, 2357 V. Swan, 1028 V. Trapier, 841 Kellam v. Janson, 1355, 1357 Kelland v. Fulford, 77, 95 Keller v. Auble, iggo V. Keller, 1642 V. Klopfer, 1290 V. Michael, 890, 927 V. McMicliael, 888 Kelleran z;. Brown, 2039, 2043 Kellersberger v. Kopp, 1426 Kellett V, Kellett, 306 Kelley v. Babcock, 1690 V. Ball, 936 z/. Canary, 1946 V. Jenness, 1646 V. Mayor, 1194 V. Meins, 317, 1815 V. Todd, 1205, 1206 V. Whitmore, 1^52 Kellog V. Dickinson, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40 V. Hale. 298, 1560 Kellogg V. Ames, 2130 V. Blair, 305, 306, 308, 311, 312, 337 V. Fi'azier,'2027 V. Griswold, 1242 V. Groves, 1309 V. Kellogg, 1282 V. Loomis, 2364 V. Rand, 2154 V. Robinson, 1074 z/. Rockwell, 2085, 2087, 2184, 2185 Kellum V. Smith, 15S6, 1635, 1645, 2050 Kelly V. Baker, 1387, 1392, 1392 1436, 1446 V. Bryan, 2047, 2052 V. Dutch Church, 1245 V. Harrison, 893 V. Johnson, 1612, 1615, 1646 V. Kelly, 366, 2138 V. Love's Admrs., 1684 V. Medlin, igoo V. Mills, 2120 V. Nichols, 1686, 1729 V. Patterson, 1264, 1310, 1316 V. Roberts, 2072 71. Seward, 2301 z/.-Stimson, 916, 934, 955, g^S V. Strange, 890 V. Thompson, 2039, 2053 V. Weston, 1232 V. Whitney, 2134 Kelsey- v. Dunlap, 2364 V. Durkee, 123 z/. Hardy, 2279 V. King, 5, 121 Kemble Coal Co., w. Scott, 1002 Kemp V. Cassart, 650 V. Derrett, 1302, 1312, 1328. 1339 V. Holland, 933 cllv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Kemp V. Porter, 1794 ■V. Sober, 1185 Kemper v, Hughes, 2365 Kempner v. Comer, 1489 Kendall v. Garland, 978 V. Clark, 1501, 1502, 1518, 1519 V. Eyre, 416, 447, 472 V. Gleason, 1802 V. Granger, 163S, 1685 •u. Honey, 874 V. Lawrence, 985, 1030, 2343 v. Mann, 1643, 1646 V. Moore, 1136, 1304, 1417 V. Neebuhr, 2179, 2180 7J. Treadwell, 2144 Kender v. Milward, 1649 Kenege v. Elliott, 58, 2253 KeiUey v. Hudelson, 1399, 1402, 1451 V. Kenley, 883 Kena v. Nugent, 1267 Kennard tj. Brough, 135 V. Harvey, 2272 Kennedy, In re, 1510 Kennedy "O. Brown, 2070, 2072 V. Fury, 1706, 1744 2/. Johnston, 941 V. Kennedy, 444, 761, 780, 788, 1402, 1621, 1975 V, Mills, 916, 933, 935, 954 V. Nedrow, 749, 919, 936, 956, 964 V, Nunan, 1637, 1746 V. Price, 1646 V. Reames, 2272 V, Robinson, 54 V. Stacey, 1450, 1467, 1475, 1478 V. Taylor, 1652 Kennerly -v. Burgess, 2187 V. Missouri Ins. Co., 714, 721, S50 Kennett v. Plumraan, 1999 V. Plummer, 2062, 2063 Kenniston v. Leighton, 1538 Kennon v. McRoberts, 307, 321, 334 V. Wright, 2272 Kenrick v. Beauclerck, 299, 1606, 1609 Kent IK Agard, 2050 •V. Beaty, 1454 V. Dunham, 1604 V. Hartpoole, 694 V. Lasley, 2043, 2048 V. Morrison, 1815, 1816 •V. Plumb, 1777 V. Waite, 2218 V. Watson, 2301 V. Welch, 1989 V. Well, 492 V. Welsh, 2362 Kensington v. Bouverie, 509 V. Dollond, 1371 Kentucky River Nav. Co., v. Commonwealth, 1 139, 1146 Kentzinger's Estate, 662 Kenvon v. Nichols, 2242 Keofe V. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 198 Keogh V. Daniel, 122, 129, 146, 1158 Kepple's Case, 348 Keppell 7'. Bailey, 1070, 1074, 1078 Kem V. Myll, 1045 Kemochan v. 'Ne-w York Ins. Co., 2118 Kemochan 7/. N. Y. Bowery Fire Ins. Co., 2117 Kerr v. Clark, 981, 1013, 1284, 1322, 13^/ z'. Connell, 54 v. Day, 1078 z/. Freeman, 2321, 2322 V. Gilmore, 2046 V. Kingbury, 131, 1188, ii8g v. Kitchen, 1777 v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1015, 1016, 1176, 1 180 ». Moon's Devises, 368 V. Moon, 720, 2057, 205S, 2288, 2289 V. Read, i6go V. White, 1777 Kerrians v. Perple, 1273, 12S7, 128S, 12S9 Kershaw v. Kelsey, 672, 673 V. Thompson, 2145, 2156 Kessler v. Draub, 1403, 1454, 1459 Kester v. Stark, 1983 Ketchem v. Crippen, 2136 z/. Jauncy, 2141 Ketchum v. Evertson, 729 V. Shaw, 715, 802, 803, 806, 926 z/. Walsworth, 1920,1930, 1931, 1932, 1940, 1951 Keteltas v. Coleman, 1152 Ketsey*s Case, 1030 Kettlewell v. Watson, 832, 2008 Key V. Davis, g86 V. Jennings, 2310 Keyes v. Bump^ Admr., 2030 v. Carlton, 1091, 1792, 1798 V. Dearborn, 1003 ». Keyes, 751 V. Powell, 988 7/. Rines, 1500, 1503 7/. Scanlon, 892, 1407 ' V. Wood, 2103, 2105, 2106, 2108 Yieynerv. Summer, 2209 Keys 2>. Goldsborough, 403 Keyser's Appeal, 501 .Keyser v. Evans, 1915 v. Hitz, 2oi66 V. Mitchell, 500, 1748 7'. Nicholas, 500 V. Philadelphia, 970 Keyte v. Perry, 669 Kezer v. Clifford, 2079 Kibbey v. Jones, 1513, 1516 ■< Kibbie v. Williams, 633, 1364, 1366 Kibbler z/. Miller, 182 1 Kibby v. Chitwood's Admr., 2332 Kidd z>. Dennison, 555, 556, 561, 1227 z/, McCormick, logi V. Treple, 1993, 1999, 2015, 2063 Kiddal v. Trimbell, 865 Kidder v. Blaisdell, 864 V. Rexford, 1922 Kidwell V. Brumagin, 1652 V. Kidwell, 2251, 2257, 2258 Kieffer v. Imhof, 2211 Kiersted v. Orange R. Co., 2271 Kieth 2'. Paulk, 2257 Kilborn v. Robbins, 805, 806, 8og, 2153, 2178 Kilbum V. Mullen, 596 Kile V. Biebner, 122 Kilgour V. Ashcom, 2236 V. Crawford, 1983, 1986 Kilkenny Gas Co. ». Somerville, 1139 Killeran v. Brown, 2049 Killinger v. Ridenhouser, 794, 796, 913 Kilmer 7f. Smith, 2330, 2331 Kilmore ?/. Howlett, 54, 56 Kilpatrick v. Henson, 2079 V. Kilpatrick, 2006 Kilpin v. Kilpin, 1647 Kilsley v. Ames, 2160 Kimball v. First Parish of Rowley, 32 V. Ives, 1782 V. Kimball, 764 v. Lewiston, 2187 z>. Lockwood, 1118, 2065 V. Lohmars, 2298 v. Master Grand Lodge of Masons, no 7J. Morton, 1699, 1738 z>. Myers, 2027, 2031 V. Pike, 1 121, 2251 V. Redding, 1714, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1721, 1720 z/. Rowland, 1061, 1344, 1345 V. Sattley, 2020 V. Second Parish of Rowland, 32, 37, 38, V. Stormer, 2298 ■V. Sumner, 1921, 2251, 2257, 2258 Kimber v. Barber, 1621 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clv Kimbrel z-. Willis, 1403, 1404 Kimmell v. Benna, 2301 1'. Willard, 2073 Kimpton z'. Rallaymy, 2199 V. Walfer, logg V. Walker, 1067, jo6g, 1098, 2362 Kincaid's Appeal, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 Kiuchelve v, Tracewell, 2298 Kincks z>. Stubbin, 768 Kindberg t'. Freeman, 2152 King z'. Ackerman, 305, 795, 1823 z'. Anderson, 2251, 2252, 2257, 2258 V. Aldborougli, 1107, im, iiiS, 1123 t'. Baldwin, 2136 V. Barnes. 532 V. Bellovd, 1S27 z'. Bill, 1662 V. Boys, 1554 z'. Burcliall, 250, 252, 266 V. Castle, 260 V. Cole, 341, 342 V. Connolly, 1274 Z-. Cotton, 795 v. Deedham, 2331 ■z'. Dodd, 1242 Z-. Donnelly, 1599, 1788 z'. Dunsford, Sii V. Duntz, 1755 v. Fowler, 1267 V. George, 2 v. Gunnison, 890 z'. Howard, igSo z'. Husatonic R. Co.. 225S V. Inhabitants Bosworlh, 1273 Z'. Inhabitants of Herstmonceaux, 1302 V. Insurance Co., 20S0 v. Johnson, 129, 139, 140, 141 V. Jones, 1077 v. Kelstem, 1273, 12SS V. Kenan, 1625 7'. Kerr, 730 V. King, 314, 315, 505, 74S, 749, 792, 802, 915. 2357 z'. Langnville, 1273 z>. Large, 26S V. Lawson, 1294 z'. Leach, 1885 z'. Little, 2252, 2257, 2259 zi. Longnor, 1044 V. Lucas, 1562 2-. McCarley, 1383, 1519 V. McVickar, 2120 v. Mailing, 421, 422 7/. Merchants' Exchange Co., 2148 V. Milkridge, 1273 V. Minister, 1273 V. Mitchell, 1591, 1592, 1637 z'. Morford, 1292 V. Morris, 511 zf. Murray, 1144, 2254 z'. Newman, 2043, 2168 V. New York Cent. & H. R. Co., 1194, "95 V. Nutall, 517 V. Oakley, 1022 v. Otley, 123 V. Paddock, 2346 V. Parker, 1796, 18S6 V. Patsrson & H. R. R. Co., 43 z/. Pedly, 1202 z>. Portis, 2 1 19 z'. Rea, 294, 296, 2301 v. Reed, 1988 V. Reynolds, 1055 V. Rundle, 1637 z'. Shrives, 307 V. State Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2113, 2114, 2117, 2118 V. Stetson, 766, 829 V. Stock, 1272 V. Talbot, 691;, 1664, 1721 V. Topping, McClell. & Y., 250 King zf. Utley, 439 z>. Weeks, ^24 v. Welborn, 13S3, 1392, 1417, 1418, 1438 V. Wilcomb, 61, 119 7j. Withers, 1572 V. Woodruff, 13 16 V. Yarborongh, 2293 King of Spain zk Machado, 753, 755 Kingdom v. Bridges, 1647 z>. Briggs, 779 Zf. Noddle, 2362 Kingham v. Lee, 1364 Kingman 7A Graham, 2302 z>. Higgins, 1464 V. Pierce, 2173 V. Sparrow, 779, 822 Kingsbiuy v, Buckner, 2073, 2172 z'. Burnside, 1589, 1592, 1690 V. Collins, 538, 1205, 1206, 1254 V. Westfall, 1175 Kingsland v. Clark, 1127, 1129, 1167, 1170, 2268 Zf. Rapelye, 421, 423, 426 7'. Ruckman, 1026 Kingsley v. Holbrook, 51, 53, 55, 2354 V. Kingsley, 1399, 1426, 1432 V. Smith, 588, 651, 670, 671, 68i Kingsman v. Loomis, 2303 V. Rouse, 2176 Kingsmill z'. Millard, 1215 Kingston Building Association v. Rainsford, 1046 z'. Lorton, 1630 Kinloch z'. I'On, 1757, 1764 Kinn v. Smith, 2102 Kinna z>. Smith, 1995, 20S5, 2104, 2105, 2147 Kinnard v. Thompson, 1794 Kinnear 7'. Lowell. 1094, 2178 Kinnen v. Maxwell, 2011 z'. Slattery, 1898, 1900, 191 5 Kinney v. Watts, 1082, 1245 Kinnier 7'. Rogers, 1807 Kinsell f. Billings, 127 7/. Daggett, 2295 Kinsey v. Lardner, 315 V. Minnick, 1335, 1342, 1343 Kinsler v. McCants, 787 Kinsley z>. Ames, 1350, 1354 z'. Abbott, 1885 Kinsloving v. Pierce, 930 Kinsmen v. Green, 1017 Kinter v. Jenks, 1593, 1632 Kintz V. Long, 485, 2334 Kipp V. Kipp, 1920 Kirby v, Boylston Market Assn., 1202 ZI. Chetwood's Admr, 2323 7'. Dalton, 804, S52 z'. Moody, 1947 V. Potter, 43 V. Reese, 2170 V. Vantreace, 781 V. Webb, 1649 Kirk V. Dean, 928 V. Houston Direct Navigation Co., 1947 V. King, 2303 V. Talliaferre, 1211 7/. Webb, 1700 Kirkaldie v. Larrabee, 1467 Kirkham 7' Booth, 1715 z'. Boston, 2004, 2007 V. Dupont, 2171 Z'. Jarvis, 1168 V. Sharp, 2220 z/. Smith, 446 Kirkland v. Cox, 289, 335, 1796 Kirkman z>. Bank of America, 2177 Kirkpatrick z'. Caldwell, 2.20 V. Mathiot, 1921 ■V. Peshine, 268 Kirkwood v. Doman, 1952, 1953 V. Thompson, 2086 Kirtland v. Pounsett, 1292 Kirwan v. Latour, 105, 126, 135 cl VI TABLE OP CASES. References are to pages. Kisler &. Kisler, 1611, 1635 KisU:ig V. Shaw, 1735 Kissaii V. Barclay, 122 Kister v. Reiser, 283 Kitchell V. Burgwin, 137S, 1397, i3gS, 1461 z/. Mudgett, 2136 Kitchen v. Bedford, 1592 V. Pridgen, 1260, 1269, 1280, 1293, 1302, 1306, 1524, 1333, 1334 Kites V. Cliurch, iSgo, 1894, 2249 Kitner z'. Ege, 10S3 Kitterlin v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Mutual Insurance Co., 1470, 1479 Kittle V. St. John, 1160 V, Van Dyck, 766, 1492 Kittridge v. Locks & Canals Merrimack, igg6 V. Woods, 46, 78, 79, 103, 106, 135, 567 Kitzmiller v. Van Renselaer, 907, 911 KJapp's Assignees v. Shirk, 1795 Kleemauz'. Frisbee, 2106 Klenck v. Knoble, 1446 Klein v. Isaacs, 2071 V. McNamara, 2045, 2312 Klinck V. Keckeley, 766 V. Keckey, 926 V. Price, 2001, 2046 Kline's Estate, 960 Kline v. Beebe, 600, 603,612,614, 985, 1031 V. Cline, 960, 961 V. Jacobs, 10S3, 1292, 1905 V. McLain, 1196 V. Moulton, 1020 V. Ragland, 1932 Klock V. Walter, 2045 Klopfer V. Keller, logo Klotenbrock v. Cracraft, 641, 642, 666 Klumpe V Baker, 2300 Klutts V. Klutts, 799 Knabe v. Femot, loig Knachbull v. Hallett, 1621 Knapp V. Brown, 1211 v. Hungerford, 1983 V. Maltby, 2339 V. Marlboro, 1080 ■V. Smith, 1035 Knappen v. Freeman, 1046 Knarr v. Conway, 20S1 Knatchbull v, Hallett, 1761 Knecht v. Mitchell, 996 Kneeland v. Moore, 805 • V. Schmidt, 1161 Kneil v. Egleston, 646 Knickerbocker v. Seymour, 820, S21, 913 Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 2069 V. Patterson, 2263 Knight V. Barber, 817 V. Bell, 1371 V. Bennett, 1322 V. Bowyer, 76 V. Buckley, 1254 V. Crockford, 998, 1043 V. Duplessis, 673 V. Dyer. 2042 V. Gould, 1 838 V. Indiana Coal & Iron Co., 88, 1251 1263, 1280, 1293 V. Knight. 346, 347, 1627, 1632, 2073 V. Majoribanks, 2086 . •v. Manils, 764 V. Mann, 766 V. Mosely, 561 V. Pursell, 2236 Knight, Doe d., v. Nepean, 522 Knight, Doe d., v. Quigley, 1068, 1278, 1283 Knipe v. Palmer, 1034 Knobb V. Lindsay, 1758 Knoll's Case, 562 Knott V. Lawton, Doe d., 312 V. Receivers of Morris Canal Co., 1036 Knouff z/. Thompson, 2302 Knowlden v. Leavitt, 292 Knowles v. Carpenter, 8ri, 2098 Knowles -v. Hull, 1354, 1355 •u, Lawton, 810, 2151, 2155 V. Rablin, 2 171 Knowlton v. Bradley, 1714, 1715, 1718, 1719, 1721, 1724, 1728 V. Redenbaugh, 671 7'. Walker, 2094, 2095, 216S, 2175 Knox V. Easton, 1997, 1998, 2065, 2077, 2078 V. Flack, 2343 V. Galligan, 2108, 2147 V. Gye, 76, 1614 V. Hester, 2269 V. Hexter, 1085 V, Hunt, 2273 V. Hydrick, 56 7'. Knox, 1627, 16S5 V. Marshall, 1234, T909 V. McFarran, 1690 V. Silloway, 492 Koch V. Briggs, 2140 Koehler v. Black River Falls Iron Co., 76 " Koenig's Appeal, 1787 Koenig v. Craft, 534 V. Haddix, 2234 Koester f. Burke, 1777 Kohl V. United States, 197 Kohler v. Knapp, 2251, 2259 Kohlheim v. Harrison, 2175 Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 516, 517 Konigmacher ?'. Kimmel, 1733 Konvalinka v. Schlegel, 918, 944, 945 Koplitzz'. Gustavis, 1135, 1136, 1264 Kopmeir w. O'Neil, 2158 Kopp V. Gnnther, 1792 Korn V. Cutler, 2S9, 349 Kornegay v. Collier, 2251, 2257 Koms V. Shaffer, 1770, 2163 Kortright v. Cady, 688, 799, 2062, 2085, 2105, 2t2g, 2131 K-Oser, Ex parte, igS Kramer v. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 2328 %'. Cook, 1052, 10S2, 1126, 1175 V. Knauff, 2217 V. Rebham, 2156 z;. Trustees of F. & M. Bank of Steu- benville, 2141 Kratmeyer?'. Brink, 1290 Krause's Appeal, 975 Krause v. Beitel, 880 Keigler 7/. Day, 664 Krentz v, McKnight, 1154 Kresin t. Man, 1419, 1439 , Krevet v. Meyer, 1057, 1356 1 Kreutz v McKnight, 11 53 ^ Kriger v. Day, 663 Krister v. Miller, 1160 Krogan v. Kinney, 219 Kronskop 7/, Shontz, 2012, 2013 Krouse V. Ross, 122 ^ Krouskop V. Shontz, 8g6 Krueger v. Farrant, igS, 200, 1197 7/. Pierce, 1483, 1484, 1500 Kruse v. Scripps, 2024, 2112 Krulz V. Fisher, 1621, 1643 Kublerz'. United States, 1036 Kuevan v. Specker, 1481 KMgler V. United States, 1316 Kuhlmanj/. Hecht, 2217 Kuhlmann v. Meier, 145 Kuhn V. Newman, 1655, 1674, 1742 Kuhns 7.'. Bankes, 2107 Kulinger v. Redinhaur, 728 Kull V. Kull, 221, 222 Kunkle v, Franklin, 1517 V. Wolfersberger, 2040, 2066 Kuntz V. Kinney, 1483, 1514, 1515 Kunzie v. Wixon, 1309, 1350 Kurtz z'. Sponable, 2105,2106 Kurz V. Brusch, 1384, 1386, 13S7, 1416, 1420, 1436, 1442, 1476 Kutch V. Holley, 1455 Kutterz/. Smith, 129, 146, 1204 References are to pages. Kutz' Appeal, 1781 Kygerz/. Ryley, 1999, 2078 Kyle z'. Barnett, 1715 V. Kavanagh, 2322 V. Kyle, 87s V. Roberts, 1030 Kyne v. Kyne, 943, 955 Kyner 7'. Kyner, 2177 Kyte 7'. Commercial U. Assr. Co., 631, 632 ;'. Keller, 1184, 1233, 1234 L. L'Amoureux t>. Van Rensselaer, 1798 Labare v. Colby, 2012 Laberee y, Carleton, 1852, 1863, 1S67 Laberge v. Chauvin, 2105 La Blanc, jRe, 1762 Lacey, Ex parley 1621, 1770, 1771, 1772 1-achland v. Downing, 411, 1447 Lacon v. Allen, 2002 V. Davenport, 1997, 1998 V. Higgins, 753 Laconia Savings Bank v. Rollins. 1502 Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano & Fertilizer Co., 4, 51, 143 Lacy V. Anderson, 953, 957 ZK Clements, 1407, 1411, 1425 Laddt'. Abel, 48 7'. Dudley, 1512 V. Harvey, 470 v. Jackson, 1723 7'. King, 1699 V. Ladd, 1810, 1828, 1829, 1831 7'. Perley, 1979 V. Riggle, 1 141 V. AViggin, 2101 Lade v. Holford, 1743 Ladley v. Creighton, 1047 Ladue v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 2104, 2105 V. Railroad Co., 2099 Lady v. Madison's Case LafFan p. Naglee, 259, 1076, 1067 La Farge v. Mansfield, 979 La Farge Ins. Co. v. Bell, 2154 Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. Geiger, 2328 Laffite 7'. Lawton, 646 laflin V. Griffiths, 113 Lafrombois v. Jackson, 2291 Lagow 7'. Badolett, 1764,2008 Laguerenne 7'. Dougherty, 1132, 1135, 1315, 1317 Laiiy 7/. Holland, 1722, 1723 Laidlaw v. Organ, mo Laidler v. Young, 402, 415,447, 456, 466, 467 V. Young's Lessee, 414, 464 Laidley v. Kline, 839 Laight V. Pell, 2158 Laing z<. Eariowe, 306 V. Byrne, 2072 7'. Fidgeon, 1200 7'. Harbour, 202 Lair 7/ . Hunsicker, 1595 Laird v. Hedges, 2056 Lake v. Campbell, 1044, 1046 7'. De Lambert, 1658 7', Dowd, 2001, 2038 V. Freer, 1690 7'. Gaines, 2272 7'. Gray, 2364 V. Thomas, 2004 -^ Lakeview v. Rosehill Cemetery, 4 Lakin v. Lakin. 774, S87, 894, 920, 921 Lallande v. Wentz, 1902 Lamar v. Miles, 122 V. McNamee, 1163 Lamb v. Burbank, 1096 V. Danforth, igo8 V, Davenport, 2308 V. Fames, 1828 V. Jeffery, 2172 V. Lamb, 697 TABLE OF CASES. clvii Lamb v. Lathrop, 1865 V. Montague, 2074, 2075, 2137, 2173 V. Pierce, 1047 V. Richards, 2137, 2170 V. Scott, 707, 718, 720, 731, 733, 736, 739, S60 V. Turner. 2359 V. Wogan, 1463 Lamb, Estate of, 1477 Lambe v. Eames, 346, 1084 Lambert v. Blumenthal, 19S2 V. Borden. 1317 v. Kinnery, 1502, 1519 V. Monis, 2252 V. Paine, 201, 203, 1823 7'. Wanier, 742 Lambert's Lessee v. Paine s, 202, 204, 305, 312 Lambertons 7'. Stouffer, 1207, 2255 Lambertville National Bk. v, McCready Bag& P. Co. (N, J.), 2147, 214S, 2172 Lambson, Re, 1401 Lamkin v, Knapp, 771 Lammer v. Missen. 2293 Lammott 7/. Gist, 1163 Lamont v. Cheshire, 2152 Lampel's Case, 900 Lampert z'. Hydel, 1677. 167S Lampet's Case, 1250, 1570 Lamphere v. Lowe, 122 Lampleigh v. LampleigH, 1538, 1648 Lamp man 7/. Milks, 20, 2211,2216, 2224, 2232, 2236, 2241 Lamprey v. Nudd, 2:04 Lamson v. Clarkson, 1219 7'. Drake, 2074, 2169, 2173 Lanahan v. Sears, 1502, 2038 Lancashire v. Mason, 2251, 2257 Lancaster v. Detaford, 999 V. Dolan. 1375, 1560, 1583, 1673, 1674, 167s. 1799 V. Lancaster, 748 V. Seay, 1983 V. Thornton, 1605, 1811 •V. Washington Life Ins. Co., 523 Lancaster Bank v. Myley, 286, 1963 Lancaster County Bank 7/. Stauffer, 589, 590, 616, 635, 636, 637, 1363, 1364 Lance v. Gorman, 2170 Lanchester 7/. Eve, 117 Land Co. v. Gas Co., 1474. 1476 Lander Contract, In re, 1097 Landers %>. Beauchkamp, 133* Landes v Brent, 2015 Laudon v. Burke, 2144 V. Hooper, 2086 V. Piatt, 1 1 86 •V. Watson, 1149 Landsberger v. Magnetic Tel. Co. 1247 Landsell v. Gower, Doe d., 1309 Lane v. Baker, 1403 V. Bobyns, 1901 V. Cowper, 1030, 1031 V. Debenham, 1663 V. Dickerson, 2052 V. Dighton, 1623, 1649, 1760, 1761 V. Dorman, 2324, 2332, 2333 V. Erskine, 2149 V, Ewing, 1593, 1702, 1739 V. Gould, 210, 212 V. Hitchcock, 2186, 2187 V. Husband, 1793 V. King, 45, 47, 688, 1206, 2065 V. Lane, 249, 1614 V. Ludlow, 2009 V. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 21 16 ^ V. Osment, 1141, 1150 V. Shears, 799, 2039 V. Tyler, i960, 1963 V. Wick, 1^16 Lanfair 7/. Lanfair, 2015, 2031, 2040, 2041 Lang 7'. Barnes, 1933, 1952 V. Hitchcock, 634, 635 clviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Lang V. Ropke, 1682 V. Warring, 736, 824, 1961 V. Wilbraham, 1682 Lang's Heir v. Waring, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1963 Langdale, ^-r/(zWe, 1241, 1242 Langdon v. Buell, 2ogg, 2101, 2107 V. In^m*s Guardian, 259, 261, 263 V. KeitJi, 2105, 2107 V. Mayor, 2294 V. Paul, 2187 V. Poor, 2335 V. Potter, 1913 V. Stevens, 850 V. Strong, 671 langeleyz/. Hammond, 2216 Langfordz*. Eyrie, 1831 V. Frey, 985 V. Gascoyne, 1733 V. Selmer, 2301 V. Selmes, nog, 1121 Langley v. Furlong. 563 y. Hammond, 2211 V. Ross, 1138 V. Vaughn, 2024 Langston v. Horton, 2017 V. Norton. 2044 Langworthy v. Heeb, 831 Lanier v. Booth, 2243 V. Driver, 1795 V. Hill, 1221 Lanigan v. Kille, 1190 Lankford v. Green, 2270 Lanphere v. Lowe, 126 Lansing v. Goelet, 1996, 2144, 2146, 2157 V. Pine, 1163 V. Smith, 2304 V. Stone, 568, 1181, 1183 V. Van Alstyne, 226S V. Wiswall, 2218, 2241 I,antshery v. Collier, iSii Lapham v. Norton, 135, 139, 1290 Lapice v. Gereandeau, 720 Lapish V. Bangor Bank, 99 Lapman v. Milks, 2241 Lappen v. Hill, 2071 Lapsley v. Lapsley, 411, 414 Large's Case, 259, 263, 1687, 1858 Large ?'. Van Dowen, 2031, 2134 Larkins' Estate, 1449 Larkin v. Ames, 2360 V. Avery, m,i3. i29q» i3o7) i3i9> ^337 Lame v. Farren Hotel Co., 1202 Lamed v. Bridge, 31S, 319 V, Hudson, 1257, 1258, 1261, 1270, 1274, 1278, 1280, 1344 Larney 7/. Mooney, ir66 Laroe v. Douglass, 1734 Larrabee v. Eambert, 125S, 1272, 1285 V. Lumbert, 1277 V. Tucker, 2286 V, Van Aylstyne, 880, 917, 918, 938, 942, 944. 952 Larreau v. Davignon, 1657 ].arrowe v. Beam, 841 Larson v. Reynolds, 1409, 14501 i473» i475. 1478. 1479, 1485, 1489, 1493, 1523 Larwell v, Stevens, 2296 Lary v. Dunham, 730- Lasala v. Holbrook, 92, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234 Lasare v. Rochereau, 2149 Lash V. Lash, 1954 Lasher 7/. Lasher, 708, 917, 918, 942 Lassell v. Reed, 78, 79, 103, 106 Lassells z'. Comwallis, 1825, 1840 Lassen v. Vance, 766, 1492, 1497, 1591 Latch V. Bright, 1047 Latham v. Atwood, 53 V, Blakely, 104 V. Henderson, 1646 7'. Lawrence, 1770 Lathrop v. Arnold, igot, 1902 », Atwood, 2025, Z026 Lathrop v. Bampton, 1739, 1740, 1759, 1760 zK Blake, 113 V. Clewis, 983, 2249, 2257, 2272 V. Commercial Bank, 118, 458 V. Foster, 807, 835, 868, 896, 900, 909 V. Rogers, 1236 V. Scotia Bank, 224 •V. Singer, 1403 V. Smalley, 1715, 1721, 1722 Latimer v. Elgin, 719 Latimore v. Moore, 2087 La Touche v. Earl of Lucan, 1793 Latouche v. Dunsamp, 2139 Latrobe v. Tieman, 1731, 1732, 1734 Lauchner -v. Rex, 46 Laud V. Parker, 2297 Laughliu v, Fream, got ?/. Wright, i3g2, 1416, 1418 Laughter's Case, 1863, i86g Laughter v. Humphrey, 2253 Laughnian v. Thompson, 890 Laughran z/. Smith, 996,998, 1043, 1134, US'?. 1300, 1322, 1327 Lauriat v. Stratton, 2172 Laurie, Re, 2266 Lausman v. Drahos, 989, 1214, 1222 Lautz V. Buckingham, 2059 Lavender v. Abbott, 2004 V. Lee, 1825 Lavery z'. Egan, 291 Laverty v. Woodward, 2251, 2258 Law's Estate, Re, 1720 Law V. Butler, 1468, 1473, 1474, i479> M^o 1}. McDonald, 2226 V. Paterson, igrs Lawes v. Lumpkin, 1165 Lawney's Trustees v. St. Louis, 1134 Lawrence v. Bartlett, 645 V. Brown, 716, 718, 737, 740, 780, S63 V. Burrell, 1166 V. Cooke, i68g ■u. Cornell, 2176 V. Dale, 1770 V. Davis, 1795 V. Fox, 2072 V French, 1128, 1168, 1174 u. Heister, 903 V. Kemp, 109, III, 121, 123, 139 V. Knapp, 2ogg, 2104, 2106 V, Knight, 1159 V. Lawrence, 415, 465, 965 7/. Mayor of Savannah, 1157 V. Miller, 714, 716, 738, 838, 893, 1149, 1220 •V. Obee, 2245 V. Shipman, 1193, 1194 V. Smith, 55 V. St. Mark's Ins. Co., 1224 ZK Stratton, 2055, 2103, 2134 V. Tayloa. 1042 V. Taylor, 1041 V. Towle. 2069 zj. Tucker, 2023 V. Wardell, 1246 Fawry v. Tilleny, 2296 Lawson v. Cunningham, 1259 V. Love joy, 985 7/. Morten, 781, 789, 841, 842, 857 Lawther v. Corill, 998 Lawton v. Adams, 1904 V. Buckingham, 2349 V. Ford, 1782 V. Giles, 199 z>. Lawton, 123, 124, 12S, 129 V. Rivers, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2221 V. Salmon, 107, 128, 130, 137 V. Savage, 1294 Lawyer v. Cipperly, 34 V. Slingerhand, 1450, 1473 Lay 7/. Gibbons, 1758 Laylinz'. Knox, 2172 Layman z*. Shultz, 2012 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clix Layman v. Throp, 1309, 1348 Layne v. Pardee, 1456 Layson v. Grange, 1454, 1495, 1496 Layton v. Butler, S64, 867, S74, S75, 876 V. Field, 1270 Lazarus z*. 'Commonwealth Ins. Co., 631 Lazear v. Porter, 806, 8go, 927 Lazell V. Lazell, 1392, 1417, 1418, 1461 V. Pinnick, 1033 Lea V. Hernandez, 1281, 1294 V, Netherton, 1150 Leach v. Duvall, 794 V. Leach, 585, 58S, 670, 711, 761, 776 V. Pillsbury, 1456 Leek V. Richmond Co., 1804 Leadbeaterw. Roth, iio6, 116S Leaders*. Homewood, 115, 145, 1186 Leak v. Gay, 1380 Leake z-. Watson, 1661, 1668 Lean, Doe d., z>. Lean, Lear v. Leggett, 253, 260, 272, 1056, 1113 Learned v. Cutler, goi V. Foster, 2151 V. Fritch, 1253 Leary v. Patiison, 1151 7/. Meier, 133S Leathers t'. Furr, 2246 V. Gray, 439, 440 Leavittz'. Beime, 273, 1739, 1747 V. Bevine, 254 V. Fletcher, 1068, 1083, 1099, iioo, 1106, 1175, 1183, 1200 Z-. Lamprey, 733, 736, 739, 798, 867, 874, 875. V. Leavitt, 1257, 1260, 1299, 1319, 1322, 1335. 1338,2316 V. Pell, 1828, 1829, 1832 V. Pratt, 2130 V. Wooster, 307, 340, 342 Leaycraft v. Hedden, 1373, 1562 Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. &. Erb, 631 Le Beau z>. Glaze, 2129 Le Breton v. Nouchet, 775 Lebtnards'. White, 89 Lecatt V. INIerchants' Ins. Co. 643 Lechmere v. Carlyle, 1784 V. Lavie, 347, 1627, 1630, 1632 Lecompte v. Wash, 894 Ledbetter z'. Cash, 1979 V. Gash, 1975, 1986 V. Quick, 2272 Ledwich, /« re, 1599 Ledyard v. Butler, 1997, 2063 ) V. Chapin, 2129, 2134 V. Phillips, 47 z/. Ten Eyck, 2294 Lee V. Adkins, 2363 v. Baumgardener, 84, 88, 89 zf. Browder, 1633, 1645, 1648 V. Evans, 1996, 2045, 2050 V. Fletcher, 2034, 2056, 2061 V. Fox, 1990 V. Hanison, 1677 ■V. Jeddo Coal Co., 2336 1/. Kilbum, 2044 V. Kingsbury, 1413, 1480, 1488; 1504, 2158 v. Kirby, 1697 V. Lee, 1020, 1716 V. Lindell, 725, 785, 786, 886, 887 7/. McElvy, 4ir, 413, 415 V. Miller, 1443 z/. Moseley, 1395, 1458 z'. Muggeridge, 1836 2/. Payne, 1122 V. Risdon, 119, 127, 145, 1186 Zf. Selleck, 2056 z;. Smith, 976, 2288 V. Stanley, 1456 2/, Stiger, 2068 V. Stigner, 2069 z>. Stone, 2140 V. Summers, 1282 Lee V. Turne, 1902 V. Woodworth, 2024 V. Zabriskee, 1920 Leech v. Leech, 759 Leed v. Beene, 1782 Leeds zr. Cheetham, 1098, 1179, 1181 V. Gifford, 2066 z'. Wakefield, 1830 Leefe, Matter of, 221, 645 Leesz/. Nuttall, 1617,- 1644, ^645, 1708, 1771 Le Farge F. Ins. Co. 7/. Bell, 2197, 2180 Lefever v. Lefever, 918, 944 V. Witmer, 1366, 1377 Leffingw.ell v. Elliott, 1095 V. Warren, 1516 Leffler v. Armstrong, 1755 Legard z>. Hodgers, 1665, 1690 Legge V. Legge, 495 V. Strudwick, 1300, 1307, 1313, 1314, 1321, 1322 Leggett V. Bullock, 2126 z>. Dubois, 218, 1635, 1680 z/. Hunter, 1599, 1798 v. Hyde, 1241, 1243 Zf. McClelland, 670 v. New Jersey Mfg. & Bkg. Co., 2342 V. Perkins, 299, 1374, 1559, 1606 z/. Steele, 842 Le Gierce v. Green, 2263 Lehigh Valley R. Co. z/. McFarlan, 2292 Legro V. Lord. 1480, 1481 Lehman v. Br)'an, 1457 V. Lewis, 1635 z'. McQueen, 2109 z'. Tallahassee Mfg. Co., 2065 Leiby v. Wilson, 121 1 Leicester, Doe d., v. Briggs, 1560, 1574, 1607 Leiderkranz Society v. Beck, 863 Leigh z/. Balcarres, 1040 z/. Barry, 1732 7/. Dickeson, 1891 Zf. Hammer's Case, 750 z>. Harrison, 1678 V. Loyd, 2159 Zf. Shepherd, 1927 V. Smith, 178-1, 1785 Leighton v. Preston, 1998, 2079 Zf. Shapely, 2129 v. Theed, 1267 Leishman v. White, 1128, 1167, 1173, 1174 Leitch V. Boyington, 2251, 2257, 2258 V. Little, 1889 Leitensdorfer z/. Delphy, 2S4 Leith V. Irvine, 2051 Lekeux ?/. Nash, 1074, 2265 Leland z'. Adams, 307, 309, 312 z/. Garrett, 63 z'. Gassett, 62, iig, 2213 ' z'. Loring, 2157 Le la Zerge z/. Kom, 1246 Lemar v. Miles, 126 Lemmond z'. Peoples, 1637 Lemon z>. Graham, 284 z>- Hayden, 2206 Zf. Lemon, 965 Lempet's Case, S85 Lench v. Lench, 1623, 1642, 1644, 1700, 1761 Lenfers z/. Henke, 561, 811, S12, 847, 851,852, Lenihan v. Hamann, 2152 Lenmau z/. Lewis, 1633 Lennox z/. Reed, 1999, 2149, 2151 Lentz'. Howard, 1798 Lentz 7'. Lentz, 18S2 Leonard z/. American Bapt. Home Mission Soc, 1809 V. Bell, 1603, 1680 V. Burgess, 2251 7J. Burr, 179S 7'. Countess of Sussex, 1609 71. Diamond, 1604, 1753 V. Henderson, 1139, 1151 clx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Leonard v. Leonard, 849, S50, 1899, 2299 V, Pitney, 1268, 1272 V. Scarborough, 1246, 1905 V. Steele, 942, 946, 949 V. Stickney, 135, 136, 137 V. Storer, 1085, 1199, 1201 Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 2331 Leppitt V. Hopkins, 536 Lesesne v. Witte, 1593 Leshey v. Gardner, 1697, i6g8 Lesley v. Randolph, 1254, 1271, 1300, 1303, 1308, 1315, 1320, 1325, 1328, 1335, 1336, 1338, 1339 Leslie v. Pounds, 1196 Lessley v. Phipps, 1499, 1512, 1513, 1517 Lester v. Garland, 1005, 174S V. Hardesty, 2262 Lestrade v. Earth, 2331 Letchford v. Gary, 1442, 1499 Letheullier v. Tracey, 370, 373 Le Toureau v. Smith, 1338 Levering v. Heighe, 954, 956 Levett V. Eickford, 1138, 1139, 1154 V. United States, 1036 Levi z". Erooks, 1194 Levicks v. Walker, 1506 Levins v, Sleator, 670, 771, 920 Levitzki z'. Canning, 1166, 1168 Levy V. Brush, 1559 V. Dyess, 1068, 1098, logg, 1105, 1181, 1183 "u. Lane, 2080 V. Levy, 1603 V. Twiname, 2272 Lewes v, Lewes, 260, 272, 273, 1677 V. Ridge, 1849 Lewinz/. Atkinson, 1984 V. Mody, 2358 Lewis V. Baird, 1786, 2366 V. Beall, 2320 V. Branthwaite, 988 V. Chisholm, 1166 V. City of St. Louis, 1140, 1151 V. Clark, i8g6 V. Coxe, 903, 927 V. Day, 2068 V. De Forrest, 2022, 2027 V. Hawkins, 15S5, 1736, 1782 V. James, 842, 844 V. Jones, 80, 566, 567, 1184 V. Lewis, 730, 933, 941, 1617 z'. Lyman, 79, 1184, 1238, 1239 V. Maddocks, 1761 V. Malone, 2272 V. McNatt, 51, 983, i2og V. Merserve, 764 z'. Mobely, 522 V. Naugh, 2073, 2170 V. O. N. P. Co., 1188 V. Palmer, 339 z'. Payn, 1129, 1166, 1174 V. Rickey, 240 V. Simon, 1949 V. Smith, 917, 918, 925, 935, 936, 941, 942, 944,_ 946 V, Wilkins, 2251, 2254 Lewis, Doe d., v. Reed, 1306 Lewis, Doe d., v. Rees, 1215 Lewis ex d. Ormond v. Waters, 424 Lewis' Heirs v. Ringo, 975 Lewiston v. Proctor, 2206 Lexington Life F. & M. Ins. Co. z-. Page, 1737, 1738 Leyman v. Abeel, 2191, 2200 L'Hussier v. Zallee, 1066 Libby v. Clark, 228 V. Hopkins, 1762 V. Staples, ggS, 1043 V. Tolford, 1066, 1191, i2or I.iddard v. Liddard, 1630 Lidderdale v, Robinson, 2177 Liebschultz v. Moore, 1164 Liefe v. Salingstone, 319, 487 Lienow v. Ellis, iri8 Liesz/. De Diablar, 1450, 1463, 1467, 1471, 1473 Life Ins. Co. v. Cole, 2359 Liford's Case, 60, 442, 443 Liggins V. Inge, 2243, 2246, 2247 Light V. Light, 949 V. Scott, 1791, 1792 Lightfoot V. Wallis, 2060 Lightgow z>. Cavenagh, 342 Ligon V. Spencer, 741 Like V. McKinstry, 996, 1205 Liles V, Fleming, 955, 963 Lllford's Case, 55 Lilley v. Fifty Associates, 1157, 2254 Lillianskyoldt v. Goss, 1884 Lillibridge %>. Adie, 417 Lillie V. Dunbar, 54 Lilly ZK Palmer, 810, 2070, 2130, 2178 Lime Rock Bank v. Phettleplace, 7S6, 825 Lime Rock Nat. Ek. v. Mowry, 2096 Linch V. Broad, 1896 Lincoln v. Buckmaster, 1034 V. Edgecomb, 211, 2298 V. Emerson, 2091 ■V. French, 1800 V. Hapgood, 1456 V. Lincoln, 2, 310, 315, 660 ■V. Newcastle, 1693 V. Wright, 2049 Lincoln & K. Bank v. Drummond, 1861 Linden v. Graham, 740 V. Hepburn, T112 Lindley v. Groff, 1882 V. Kelley, 1231, 1232 Linde z'. Belisario, 595 Lindsay v, Limbert, 11 15 V. McCormack, 305, 306, 335, 336, 340, 342 V. Murphy, 1457 Lindsey v. Bates, 2099 V. Delano, 2175 V, Leigliton, 1045 V. Lindsey, 1956 7'. Miller, 2304 V. Platner, 1612, 1615 IJndsley v. Coaies, 11 8, 458 Line zi. Stephenson, 1080 Lines v, Darden, 1561, 1654 Lingen v. Lingen, 368 Lingenfelter, z'. Ritchey, 1700 Link V. Edmonson, 780, 885 Linkenhoker's Heirs v. Detrick, 1506 Linker z/. Benson, 1897, 1915 V. Smith, 795 Linn z'. Alexander, 425 V. Ross, 1083, 1098, 1126, 117s, 1177 Linn Co. Bank xl Hopkins, 1439, 1440 Linnell v. Lyford, 2168 Linsley v. Tibbals, ggg, 1002 Linton v. Wilson, 578 Linville v. Savage, 2008 Linzee v. Mixer, 267, 268 Lion V. Eurtiss, 447, 471 Lippen v. Eldred, 310 Lippett V. Hopkins, 321, 332 Lippit V. Huston, 448 Lipsky V. Borgmann, 61, 63 Liptrotz/. Holmes, 1597, 1796 Lisburne v. Davies, 1215, 1306 Lishy V. Perry, 1481 Lisle, Goodright d., v. PuUin, 424 Lisloff V, Hart, 1642, 1643 List 1'. Rodney, 407 Litchfield v. Cudworth, 634, 636, 637 V. McComber, 1517 %'. White, 1713,1714, 1723, 1728 Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 333, 340, 402, 414, 415, 447, 466, 591, 2346 V. Moody, 1285, 1310 Litscombe, Doe d.. v. Yates, 265 Littell & Smith Mfg. Co, v. Miller, 1949 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxi Litterer v. Berry, 2064 Little V, Bennett, 1631 v. Birdwell, 1858 v. Dodge V. Duncan, 103 1 2K Libby, 210, 211, 212, 973, gSo, 1149 71. Palister, 1253, 1266 V. Pearson, 1276, 1292, 2270, 2271 7/. Snedecor Littlefield v. Brooks, 1456 V. Nichols. 2124 Littleton z>. Littleton, 727, 728, 794, 796, 912 Littlewort v. Davis, 2045 Litton 7'. Baldwin, 1375 Lively Z'. Ball, 1213 V. Paschal, 907, 939 Livennore v. Aldrich, 1648 Livingston v. County of St. Clair, 2293 V. Ketcham, 547 V. Livingston, 647, 648, 962, 1640, 1647 V. Miller, 2258 V. Moingona Coal Co., 2238 V. Murray, 1754, 1S20 V. Potts, 1162 7'. Peru Iron Co., 2297 V. ReynoldS) 546, 554, 556, 1223, 1229 z'. Stickles, 250, 255, 266, 1143 V. Story, 1994 V. Tanner, 1317, 1344, 1348, 1350, 1354, 1355, 1356 ». Tenbrock, 2199, 2201 V. Tompkins, 1146, 1872 Livingston, Jackson ex d. v. Bryan, 1146, 1269 V. Krisselbrack, 993 Ller V. Routh, 2295 Llewellyn v. Mackworth, 1782, 1783, 1785 Lloyd z/. Branton, 267,270 V. Carter, 1648, 1649, 1696 71. Conover, 785, 786, 787 V. Cozens, 1122, 1123, 1298, 1300, 1308, 1314, 1315, 133s. 1336 V. Chrispe, 1143, 1163 V. Gordon, 1915, 1976 V. Hart, 95 V. Holly, 1847, "850 z>. Lloyd, 202, 271, 307, 1637, i68q, 1858 z/. Lynch, 1588, 1590, 1650, 1653, 1882, 1990 V. Malone, 862 V. Read, 1646, 1647 V, Spillett, 1537, 1538, 1611, 1637 7'. Tomkies, 1166 Lloyd, Doe d., v, Passingham, 1556, 1558, 1559, 1583, 1655' Loach V. Famum, 1044 Loader v. Kemp, 1086 League v. Memphis, 2260, 2261 Loan Association v. Watson, 1384 Lobdell V. Hall, 2240 V. Hayes, 731, 782, 828, 831, 893 V. Lobdell, 1697 V. Simpson, 2238 Lobenthal v. Raleigh, 1816, 2167 Lochenour v. Lochenour, 1647 Lock V. Fulford, 2153, 2178 V. Lock, 518 V. Turze, 1092, 1190, 1245 Locke 7/. Alexander, 1923 7*. Barbour, 323, 500 v. Caldwell, 2175 V. Coleman, 1017, 1047 V. Frasher, 1281 V. Homer, 805, 2068, 2069 V. Matthews, 1293, 1295 z>. Palmer, 2055 V. Rowell, 146X V. White, 2301 Lockey v. Lockey, 1615 Lockhardt v. Hardy, 2181 Ix>ckhart v. Wyatt, 1600, 1704 Lockitt's Admr. v. James, 9x4 11 Lockwood V. Lockwood, 106, 981, 1254, 1255, 1264, 1300, 1322 V. Marsh, 2137 V. Nelson, 1794 V. Sturdevant, Sio, 2096, 2098 V. Thunder Bay Co., 2271 Lockwood, Doe d., v. Clark, 1076 Lockyer v. Savage, 1677 7'. Sinclair, 594 Lodge V. Patterson, 1914, 1915 V. Simonton, 1756, 1759 Loeb V. McMalion, 976, 1408 Lofland z'. Emory, 1319 Lofft V. Dennis, 1177, 1179, 2270 Lofsky V. Maujr, 2066 Loftis V. Glass, 76 Loftus' Case, 1024 Logan V. Bell, 1829 7/. Green, 1165 7/. Herron, 1125, 1131, 1271, 1300, 1308, 1310, 1315, 1335, 1336, 1337 V. McGill, 58S V. Phillips, 898 v. Simmons, 659, 794, 795 71. Smither, 2107, 2151, 2166 V. Walker, 1646 7/. Walton, 722 Logue V. Batenian, 1821, 1822 Logwood V. Hussey, 2044 Lomax v. Bird, 2169 V. Gendele, 1S83 Lombard 7/. Kiiizie, 776, 1014 Lombrat v. Kinzie, S44 Lomers v. Johnston, 1046 Londendyck v. Anderson, 2245 London z*. London, 794 V. Richmond, 2265 London Chartered Bank of Australia z/. Lem- priere, 1826 Londonberry v. Chester, 596, 751 Long 7'. Barnes, 1940 7/. Blackall, 2280 V. Cason. 1782, 1785 7'. Fitzsimmons, 5G3, 1083, 1202, 1228 V. Graeber, 664 7/. Green, 1207, 1231 z'. Kinney, 646, 895, 1938 V. Millar, 999, 1043 V. Moler, 1094 t', Mostyn, 1479 Z'. Wade, 2065 V. Whidden, 1032 7>. White, 1371 V. Woods, 1138 Longbottom v. Berry, 105, 125. 127, 132, 133 Longfellow v. Longfellow, 1160, 12 13, 1218, 1220 V. Quimbly, 1901 Longford v. Eyre, 1831 Longley v. Longley, 1637 Longqiiet 7'. Scawen, 2010 Longstretcher-7/. Pennock, 2266 Longstaff 7/. Meagoe, 132 Longwith V. Butler, 59, 2160 Loomer v. Dawson, 1000 7'. Wheelwriglit, 811, 201 1, 2099 Loomis V. Bedell, 1166 7/. Brush, 648 7'. Gerson, 1504 V. Lincoln, 2272 V. Marshall, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244 V. Pingree, 2355 7/. Riley, 2152 7/. Spencer, 2345 V. Wilbur, 545. 546, 554 Lord V. Carbon Iron Co., 198 V. Crowell, 2083 7/. Ferguson, 1617 V. Folmer, 2354 V. Lord, 936, 94o,<955. 957. '4i8 V. Morris, 2095 ■ clxii TABLE OF OASES. References arc to pages. Lord V. Parker, 646, 1514 V. Ramsey, 233S V. Wardle, 60 Lord de la Warre's Case, 277 Lord, Doe d., v, Crage, 1265, 1320, 1324 Lord HoUis' Case, 1783 Lore V. Pierson, 2261 l^orentz v. Lorentz, 1647 Lorieux z-. Keller, 1521 Lorimer v. Lewis, 1035 Loring v. Bacon, 64, 65, 507, 1891 V. Blake, 1682 V. Cooke, 2139 V, Elliott, 1637 V. Loring, 163 1 V. Manufactures Ins. Co., 2119 V. Marsh, 1662, 1814, 1842 •V. Melendy, 1225 V. Palmer, i6gi, 1705 •V. Salisbury, 1749 V. Steineman, 522, 523 v. Stuart, 1949 Lorman v. Benson, 68, 6g, 70, 194 Losee v. Buchanan, 198 V. Morey, 1697 Losey v. Simpson, 2365 Lothrop 7). Clewis, 2274 V. Thayer, 1277 V. Wightman, 1964 Lett V. Thompson, 234 V. Wyckoff, 370, 390 V. Wykoff, 415, 447, 471 Lottman u. Bamett, 1194, iig6 Loubat V. Nourse, 786, 824, 825, ig6o, 1963 Loucks, Jackson ex d., v. Churchill, 940, 944, 945- 946. 955- 965 Loud V. Lane, 809, iSto V. Loud, 896, 897 Loudon V. Warfield, 574 Loughborough's Ex. v. Loughborough's De- visees, 75 Loughbridge z*, Harris, Loughmiller z*. Harris, 1763 Loughran v. Ross, 115, 131, 146, 147, "89, 1224 V. Smith, 1017 Louisville C. & C. R. Co. ik Letson, 1540 Louisville R. Co. v. Covington, 2245 Louke V. Woods, 2206 Lounsbery v, Snyder, 1013, 1128, 1169, 1322, 1323 Lounsbury v. Purdy, 1559, 1613, 1615 Loupe V. Wood, 1054 Loury v. Coulter, 50 Louther w. Corrill, 1017 Lovaller v. Menard, 1973 Lovat V. Lord Ranelegh, 1841 V. Ranelegh, 1157, 1158 Love V. Buchanan, 1648 V. Dennis, 1213 V. Edmonston, 1140, 1259, 1269, 1290 z;., Gates, 1349 V. Howard, 1102 V. Law, 1315, 1316,2272 V. Mining Co., 2001 V. Robertson, 1947 Love, Den ex d., v. Edmonston, 1282, 1297, 1309 Loveacres v. Blight, 302, 338, 344, 1594 Loveday v. Winter, 1040 Lovelace's Case, 1044 Lovelace v. Webb, 2065 Lovell V. Briggs, 1766 V. Leland, 2157 Lover v. Bessenger, 1479 Loveridge v. Cooper, 2124 Lovering v. Levering, 1080, 1082 V. Worthington, 323, 1682 Lovett V. Gillender. 249 V. Lovett, 780, 788, 815, 820, 826 Lovingston v. County of St. Clair, 2293, 2294 Low V. Burron, 490 V. Burrow, 788, 820, 821 Low V. Griffith, q88 V. Henry, 2054 z". Holmes, 1894 V, Mumford, 1901 V. Peno, 2016 •V. Smart, 2137 Lowe's Case, 1S4 Lowe V. Brooks, 1729, 1882 V. Cloud, 265 V. Grinnan, 2161 V. London & N. W. R. R. Co., 1331, 133Z V. Miller, 1234, 1247, 1884, 1904, 2213 Lowell's Appellant, 18S6, 1919 Lowell V. Daniels, 924, 2345 V, Middlesex Ins. Co.j 200S V. Shannon, 1419 Lowell Meeting House v. Lowell, 64 Lowenstein v. Chappel, 1247 Lowndes v, Chrisolm, 2088, 2090 Lowrey v. Byers, 2136, 2150 V. Fulton, 1599 Lowry ^^ Bradley, 1456 V. Fisher, 792, 914 V, Steele, 607, 60S, 609, 615, 654, 693, 1372 V, Tew, 1269 Lowther v. Corill, 1042 »z/. Lowther, 1758 Loyd V. Read, 1634 Lozo V. Sutherland, 1425, 1426 Lucas V. Brooks, 1214, 1274 •u. Cobbs, 1349 V. Commerford, 1083 V. Dorrien, 2002 V. Harris, 2104, 2106 V. Lockhardt, 1593, 1627, 1629, 1630, 163 1 V. Lucas, 588, 648 V. Peters, 1989 V. Rickerich, 1363, 1368, 1369 V. Sawyer, 709, 721, 725, 893 V. Wasson, 1246 Luce z*. Stubbs, 835, 868, 860 Lucena v. Crauford, 631, 1668 Luch's Appeal, 2003, 2004 Lucier z/. Marsales, 2258 Lucius Hart Manf. Co., Re, 2266 Luckett V. Townshend, 2055 V. White, 1870 Lucy V. Levingstone, 1S69 Lud V. Hoff, 1919, 1931, 1934 Ludlamz*. Ludlam, 217 Ludlow V. Cooper, 786, i960 V. Hudson R. Co., 2232 Ludlow, Jackson ex d., v. Meyers, 531, 532, 1556, 1557, IS59. 1566 ■u. New York &. H. R. R. Co., 272, 1058, 1840, i860, 1863, 1867, 1868 Lufkin V. Curtis, 591, 900 V. Preston, 2250 Luhrs V. Eimer, 221, 775 Luigart v. Ripley, 965 Luige V. Ducbesi, 1739 Lull v. Matthews, 1998 Lumb V. Jer.kins, 660, 672 V. Milnes, 1371, 1372 Lumis z*. Reily, 191 1 Lumley z/. Hodgson, 1120 Lumley, Doe d., v. Scarborough, 1845 Lummus v. Mitchell, 340 Lunay v. Vantyne, 2282 Lund V. Lund, 688, 1992, 2039, 2054 V. Parker, 212 Lundberg v. Sharvey, 1438 Lunhamz'. Blundell, 1720 Lunling v. Brady, 2151 Lunn V. Gage, 1085, 1086 V. Thornton, 2020 Lunsford z*. Turner, 1148, 1169, 1170, 1219,1348 Lunt 7'. Lunt, 2111 Luntz V. Greve, 66g Luptou V. Lupton, 2181 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxiii Lurch's Appeal, 2004 Lush r'. Wilkiiisou, 1626 Lusher v. Banbong, 373 Lusk z/. McNamar, 1763 V. Smith, 749 Lute V. Reilly, 1502, 1519 Luther zk Arnold, 1923, 1924 V. Borden, 1516 V. Winn isim met t Co., 2230 Luttrell's Case, 2222, 2247 Lycoming v. Union, 1517 Lycoming F. Ins. Co. z/. Jackson, 2114 Lyddall v. Weston, 85 Lyde v, Russell, 130, 145, 146, 1187, 1224 Lydston v. Powell, 2159 Lyford v. Thurston, 1622, 1746 V. Ross, 799 Lykes %'. Schwarz, 1132 Lyle V. Burke, 1592, 17S6, 1788 V, Richards, 401, 462 z>. Palmer, 123 Lylerly v. W'^:eler, 2355 Lyles 7'. Dlcgie's Lessee, 533 7'. Lyles, TS95, 2260 Lyman v. Cessford, 1626 V. Fiske, 1456 V. Gedney, 2096 z'. Hale, 56, 57 V. Hollester, 744 V. Lyman, 2155, 2180 7'. Seames, 2358 V. United Ins. Co., 1649 Lynch v. Baldwin, 1166 V. Clarke, 217 V. Clements, 1590 V. Onondaga Salt Co., 1098 V. Pace, 1401 V. Ulica Ins. Co., 2036, 2123 Lynd v. Menzies, 34 Lynde v. Hough, 1104, mi, 1112, 1113, 1118, 1141, 1867 V. O'Donnell, 2154 V. Rowe, 133, 2065, V. Russell, 104 Lyne's Exrs., 1376 Lynn's Appeal, 494, 544, 553, 555, 55S, 561 Lyon V. Adde, 252 V. Cunningham, 1027, 125S, 1269, 1271, 1289,1290, 1292, 1305 V. Ilvaine, 1580 V. Kain, 908 V. La Mastem, 1213 v. Lyon, 1776 V, Mcllvane, 8ro, 2039, 2058, 2130 V. Marsh, 305, 317 V. Marclay, 178^ V. Robbins, 2075, 2172 Lyons v. Adde, 2262 Lysaght v. Edwards, 434 Lysle V. Williams, 1005 Lyster 'o. Kirkpatrick, 1884, 1888 Lylle V. Arkansas, 2306, 2307, 2308 M. Maberly v. Strod, 315 Mabie v. Katingter, 2133 Mably v. Stain back, 201, 202 Mabone v. Williams, 2087 Kabury v. Rutz, 1466 Macauly v. Porter, 2052 Macdonnell v. McKay, 54 Macdonough v. Elam, 1488, 1502 Mace V. Ramsey, 1247 Macey v. Shurmer, 1629 Machell v. Clarke. 455 Macher v. Foundling Hospital, 1871 Machette v. Wanless, 2027 MachiU v, CHark, 387 Machir v. May, 1723 Mack V. Burt, 1133 Mack V. Grover, 2149 V. Patchin, 1082, logi, 1190, 1245, 1248 V. Roch, 585 Mackasou's Appeal, 1748 Mackay z'. Bloodgood, 501 V. Macieth, 975, 1306 Mackey v. Collins, 730 V. Dillon, 2192 V. Proctor, 597, 608, 615, 692, 703 Mackie v. Smith, 106 Mackinnon ^^ Stewart, 1793 Mackintosh v. Trotter, 145 Macleay, Re, 258, 261, 262, 263 Macklot V. Dubreuil, 2295 Macknet v. Macknet, 938, 948 Mackreth v. Symmons, 832, 200S, 2009 Mackubin v. Whatcroft, 1059, 1060, 1139 Macnab v. Whitbread, 1627, 1629 Macnamara v. Jones, 347, 1632 Macomber v. Cambridge Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2116 •0. Godfrey, 2228 V. Parker, 2020 Macreth v. Symmons, 2004, 2124 Macy V. Combs, 1243, 1244 Madden v. Madden. 1489 Maddisoii v. Chapman, gi8, 944 Maddocks v. Jellison, 740 V. White, 1 184 Madden v. U'hite, 1301, 1306 Maddox v. Dent, 76 V. Maddox>,27o, 1858 •V. Simmons, 1032 V, White, 1 104, 1107, 122S Madigan v. McCarthy, 2021 V. Welsh, 730 Madison Avenue Baptist Church 77. Baptist Church on Oliver Street, 35, 2295 Madison & J. R. Co. v. Whiteneck, 212S Madison, etc., Plank Road Co. %\ Watertown Plank Road Co., 2014, 2016 Madland 7>. Benland, 2336 Madox tf. Humphries, 2254 Maedar v. City of Carondelet, 1082 Magaw V. Cannon, 1284, 1308, 1321, 1323 V. Lambert, 1098, 1160, 1166, 1179, 1182 Magdalene Hospital «'. Knott, 1019 Magee v. Leggett, 2177 V. Magee, 210, 211, 1492, 1497, 1498, 2295, 2297 V. O'Neill, 265 7'. Mellon, 923 V. Young, 714, 721, 725, 769, 850, 882, 893 Maggart i>. Hausbarger, 1000, irSr Magill V. De Witt Co. County Sav. Bank, 2137 V. Hinsdale, 2065 Magnay 7*. Edwards, 1173 Magniac v. Thompson, 1561 Magnolia v. Marshall, 6g Magnusson v. Johnson, 2053 Magoun v. Lapham, 207 Magruder v. Peter, 204 V. State Bank, 2025, 2059 Maguire v. Maguire, 594, 893 V. Park, 123 Magwood V. Johnson, 1562 Mahagan v. Mead, 2153 Mahan v. Brown, 2223, 2224 Mahe v. Reynolds, 1135 Maher v. Lanfrom, 2060 V. McConaga, 1462 Mahew v. Hardesty, 1117 Mahon v. McGraw, 1621 V. Smith, 708 Malione v. Brown, 83 Mahoney v. A. & St. L. R. R. Co., 976 V. Young, 789, 797, 821, 822, 841, 937, 945 Mahomer v. Harrison, 1653 Maigly v. Hauer, 1538 Main v. Featliers, 1075, iioo V. Festhers, 2262 clxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Main v. Green, 799, ii3g V. Schwarzwaelder, 104, 120, 137 Mainwaring 7/. Giles, 30, 33 Major V. Buckley, 1777 V. Chadwick, 2226, 2229, 2361 V. Lansley, 1371, 1562 Makspeace v. Rogers, 17S2 Wakinz'. Watkinson, 1084, 1097 Malcolm v. Allen, 2131 V. Malcolm, 411, 413, 415 V. Rogers, igoi, 1927 Iilalim V. Barker, 1630 V. Keighley, 347, 1628, 1630, 1632 Malin v. Clout, 804, 962 V. Malin, 1588, 1653 Mallalieu v. Wickham, 2170 Mallett V- Page, 2134 Mallinson v. Mallinson, 1464 Mallon V. Gates, 1409, 1452, 1524 Malloney v. Horon, 792, 793, 905, 906, 907, 915, 923, 924 Mallory v. Berry, 1483, 1484 V. Clark, 1751 V. Hitchcock, 810, 2097, 2098 V. Russell, 824 V. Stodder, 1016 V. Westsbore R. Co., 2070 Malmsby v. Milne, 96 Malone v. Majors, 933, 947 V. McLaurin, 587, 598, 604, 608, 612, 6ig, 686, 638, 692, 693, 703 V. O'Connor, 1630 Malpas V. Ackland, 1038, 1778 Maltby's Appeal, 339 Manahan v. Manahan, 2ior Manchester v. Doddridge, 1258, 1269, 1281, 1282, 1289, 1293, 1294, 1928 V. Durfee, 41G, 465 Manchester Bond W. Co. v. Carr, 1153 Mandel v. McClave, 708, 715, gn, 929 V. McClure, 726 Manderbach v. Bethany's Orphan Home, 2216 Manderschild v, Dubuque, 2206 Mandeville v. Solomon, iggo V. Welch, 2002 Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 245, 24g, 252, 255, 2gg, 263, 266, 444, 4g9 Manes v. Durant, 795 Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, 915 V. Osgood, 1625 Manhattan Life Ins. Co., v. Crawford, 2069 Manhattan R. Co. v. N. Y. Elevated R. Co., 1019 Manice v. Brady, 2249, 2254 V. Manice, 75, 299, 1606 V, Millen, 11 56 Manietf. Myers, 2223, 2292 Manifee v. Manifee, S47, 861, 866 Manion v. Titsworth, 1781 Manks v. Enloe, 1967 Maulone v. Komrumpf, 1457 Manly v. Hunt, 1751 V. Pettel, 1976 V. Scott, 1034 V. Slason, 832, 2005, 2006, 2008 Mann's Appeal, 1362, 1366,1370, 1376 Mami V. Best, 2160 ^ V. City of Utica, 15 17 V. Darlington, 1623 V. Eckford's Exrs., iioi V. Edson, 760, 764, 766, 7S1, 915 V. Falcon, 2000 V. Lovejoy, 1264, 1324, 1325 V. Mann, 964, 1648 V. Rogers, 1394 z-. Taylor,vi264, 1324, 1325 V. Young, 2301 Manners v. Phila. Library Co., 1603, 1604, 1681 Manning's Case, 606, 1250 Manning v. Hayden, 1621, 1644 V. Labore, 783, 797, 819, 841, 842, 844, 870 Manning v. Manning,i7i5, 1716 •u. Markel 2073 V. Smiili 2247, 2361 V. VVasdale, 2214, 2226, 2227 Mannolt v. Brush, 1979 Manriquand v. Hart, 1415 Mansell's Estate, 2182 Mausell v. Mansell, 1761 V. Vaughan, 18 17 Mansfield v. Alwood, 1714 V. Blackburne, 142 V. Doolin, 1051 V. Hawkes, 2191 V. Mansfield, 1804, 1833, 1842, 1843, 1844 V. Mclntyre, 771, 772,920 V. Pembroke. 877 Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. R. Co. ^ . Drinker, 594 Manser's Case, 2352 Mansur v. Willard, 1593 Hanson v, Phcenix Ins. Co., 2113 Mansony v. U. S. Bank, iggi Mansur &. Pratt, 2015 Mantle v. Wellington, 1026 Mantz V. Buchanan, 710, 801, 802, 817, 849, 860 Manvillc's Case, 775, 883 Manwaring %>. Jenison, 116, 117 V. Powell, ig32, 2o6g, 2072 V, Tabor, 401;, 4og, 411, 413 Maples ?'. Medlin, 1764, 1765 V. Millon, 119, 132 Mapps V. Sharpe, 2104, 2106 V. Tyler, 1754, 1755 Marable v. Jordan, 589, 1367 Marble v. Lewis. S43, 844 V. Price, 2298 Marburg v. Cole, 1024, igig, 1931, 1932, 1942, 1950, 1951 Marcy v. Marcy, igts, 2296 Marden v. Chase, 2317, 231S ■V. Jordan, 1253 Margraf v. Muir, 1697 Margrave v. Archbold, loog Mariner z/. Saunders, 1931, 1934 Mark v. Mark, 1864 V. Murphy, 744, 891, 922, 2151 Markel v. Evans, 2156 Markell v. Erchelberger, 2133 Markham v. Guerrant, 247, 254, 1748 V. Howell, 1039, 1804 V. Merritt, 786, 787, S41, 905 Mariner z*. Burton's Admr., 1290 V. Crocker, 11 19 MarkilUe v. Ragland, 305 Markland -v. Crump, 1074, 2251 Marks v. Gartside, 1141 V. Marks, 1572 V. Marsh, 1454 V. Pell, 2095, 2175 V. Sewall, 1924 Marlatt v. Warwick, 4 Marlborough v. Godolphine, 1812 Marler v. Tom.Tias, 1697 Marley v. Rogers, 1149 Marmiche v. Roumien, 1331 Marmon v. Marmon, 2013 Marple v. Myers, 1165 V. Scott, 1094 Marquart v. Bradford, 2303 Marquette R. Co. v, Harlow, 2270 Marquis of Camden, The, z/. Batterbury, 1301 Marr v. Gilliam, 1915 V. Lewis, 2164 Marriot v. Marriot, 1738 Marriott v. Abell, 1909 V. Edwards, 1149 V. Givens, 1712 Marryat v. Townly, 315 Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 274, 592, 617, 618, 619, 620, igSo Marsh v. Austin, 2031, 2032 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxv Marsh v. Butterfield, 1172 V. Hand, 1S96 V. Higgins, 671 V. Lee, 2139 V. Marsh, 1465 V. Pidgeway, 2158 V. Pike, 2o6g, 2072, 2112, 2150, 21(36 V, Towuer, 2005 Marshall v. Barr, 1450, 1473, 1475 V. Berridge, 999 V. Carson, 1644 z>. Christmas, 2008 V. Conrad, 216, 2014 7'. Crehore, 19S2 V. Crutwell, 1647 V. Davies, 2071, 2089, 2150, 2165, 2166 V. Ferguson, 51, 52 V. Fish, 297 7'. Fiske, 149, 1548,2316, 2364 V. Green, 55, 56 V. Joy, 162 1 V. King, 715. S5 1 V. Lippman, 2262 v. Marshall, 754, 755 V. Moore, 2153 V. Peters, 71, 72 V. Ruddick, 2136 V. Seare, 14S1 z'. Stephens, 1375, 1562, 1621, 1717 V. Stewart, 2039, 2040, 2055 v. Wood, 2097 Marshall Co. High School v. Evangelical Synod School, 1856 Marshall County v. Schenck, 1041 Marsham v. Hunter, 2202 Marston v. Bradshaw, 2365 V. Marston. 265, 1850, 2158 Martien v. Norris, 945 'Martin v. Baker, 1075 z'. Ballou, 1857 V. Beatty, 2017 V. Benoist, 1194, 1196 V. Blanchett, 998 V. Dicksin, 2250 V. Dwelly, 1450, 1478, 2011 V. Fridley, 2085 V. Funk, 1587, 1594, 1655 V. Goble, 2222 V. Hughes, 1419, 1509, 1513, 1517 V. Hurlburt & R. Sav. Ek., 1428 V. Jackson, 1781, 1933, 1940 ■V. Knapp, 1257, 1267, 1278 V. Knowlys, 1969 ». Kirkpatrick, 1513 V. Lincoln, 744 V. Maguire, 1044 V, Margham, 260, 272 V. Martin, 647, 714, 755. 883. 896, 9io> 956. 960, 1128, 1168, 1174, I557» 1773) 2250, 2257, 2268, 2348 V, Mayo, 103 1 V. McReynolds, 1885, 2104, 2105, 2107, 2148 V. Mitchell, i486 V. Morris, 2151 •V. Nixon, 2060 V. Noble, 915 2/. O'Connor, 1077, 1112, 1122 D. Ogdon, 198 V. Pensacola & G. R. Co., 135 V, Pond, 2142 ■v. Reynolds, 1886 V. Robinson, 669 J'. Robson. 587, 588 V. Rce, 108, 109, 110, 121, 131, 147. "37) 1187 V. Searcy, 11 64 V. Smith, 1323, 1559, T876, 1878, 1883 V. Steams. 1159. n^i V. Sterling, 516 V. Strachan, 454. 459 •V. Tenison, 1689 Martin v. Thompson, 47 V. Tobes, 1 1 18 V. Waddell's Lessee, 196 V. Walker, 1396 z', Williams, 1020, 1021 Martin, Doe d., v. Watts, 1299, ^307i ^307. 1308, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1325, 1337 Martin Clothing Co, v. Henly, 1439 Martin, Heir of Fairfax, z/. Hunter's Lessees, 673 Martindale v. Price, 1047 Martineau v. McCullum, 2107 V. Steele, 2263 Martinez v. Thompson, 1201 Martins v. Bennett, 795 Martyn v. Knowllys, 1926 Marvel ik Outlip, 12S2 Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co., 90, 92,93, 2232, 2233, 2237 V. Schilling, 2170 •V. Smith, 839 V. Trumbull, 1963 Marvin Safe Co. v. Norton, 2056 Marx V. Davis, 2082 z/. McGlynn, 216 Marx Frankel v. Marx, 1028 Maryland Fire Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 1703, 1705, 1769, 1770 Maryland Mutual Benevolent Society v. Clen- dinen, 1822 Maslin v. Thomas, 252, 396, 407, 408 Mason's Estate, 20 Mason n. Ainsworth, 1670 V. Anderson, 2303 V. Bascom, 1169, 1170 V. Daly, 2060, 2061 V. Day, 1091 V. Deese, 645 V. Denison, 1350 z>. Fenn, 145, 147, 1188, 1204 V. Finch, 1904 V. Fuller, 720 V. Grant, 2055 V. Haile, 1512, 1517 V. Hill, 72, 2225, 2226 V. Holt, 1357 V. Homer, 720 z/. Jones, igSo V. Lord, 1580 V, Martin, 176S V. Mason, 907, 1580, 1784 V. M. E. Church, 1555 V. Meyers, 1205 7J. Moody, 2036, 2037 V. Morgan, 1361 V. Moyers, 12x0 V. Payne, 2153. 2180 V. Philbrook, 2302 V. Pomeroy, 1752 V. Smith, 1 173 V. White, 2358 Mason's Lessee v. Sexton, 903 Massachusetts Hospital Life Insurance Co. -n. Wilson, 1 1 19 Massey v. Banner, 1664, 1713, 1714, 1720, 1724J 1728 V. Farmers' Bank, 974, 975 V. Hudson, 322 V. O'Dell, 1782, 1783 V. Papin, 2015, 2080 Massie v. Long, 1026, 2356 V. Watts, 1585, 1643 V. Wilson, 2155 Massie's Heirs v. Long, 1923 Massot V. Moses, 983 Master z/. Master, 66r V. Miller, 2338 Masters-^/. Madison Co. Ins. Co., 239 V. Pollic, 56, 57 Masterton v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 1247 Mastin V. Barnard, 1814 V. Halley, 2364 clxvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Masury v. Southworth, 1063, 1070, 1071, 1074, 107S, 1 103 Mather v. Chapman, gS, gg. 2332 V. Fraser, 103, 120, 125, 126, 133, 1186 V, Kunke, 2254 7/. Norton, 1S06 Mathews v. Aiken, 2126, 2178 z>. Bennett, 643, 1781 V. Heyward, 1623 v. Stephenson, i57g Mathewson w. Phoenix Iron Foundry, 752 %i. Thompson, 1339 Mathis V. Stifflebeam, 1646 Matlack v. Roberts, 414, 418, 467 Matlock V. Fry, 50 V, Lee, 733, 735, 739 V. Matlock, 786, 824, 1961 Matney v. Graham, 837 Mattack v. James, 786 Matter of Albany Street, 2324 Bull, 1S04 Eddy, 2269 Latham, 1980, igSi Orr, 1521 Prentiss, 1979 Matterson v. Thomas, 2150, 2153 Matthew z>. James, Baxter, 1033 Matthewman's Case, 2012 ■ Matthews v. Duryee, 708, 709, 716, 727, 813, 818, 925, 926, 2164 V. Light, 1620, 1643 V. Mayor, 1029 V. Memphis, 2087, 2088 V. Porter, 2047 V. Puffer, 2345 V. Wallwyn, 1995 V. Ward, 194, 195, 298, 1261, 1294, 1548, 1558, 1713, i742» 1750* 1800 Matthewson v. Smith, 801, 802 Maitice v. Lord, 1059 Matti:igly v. Speak. 2331 Mattis V. Robinson, 1160, 1212, 1222, 225S Mattison v. Marks, 2138 Mattock V. Hightshue, 2261 V. Stearns, 616, 635, 636, 637, 661, 769, 1364 Mattex V. Hightshue, 1291, 1924 V. Weand, 2008 Matts V. Hawkins, igo3 Mauckz/. Mauck, 7S6 Mauldin v. Armistead, 1794, 1885 Maule 7'. Ashmead, 1067, 1080, 2362 V. Stokes, 2254 •u. Weaver, 59, 1063 Maull V. Wilson, 567 Maund's Case, 1050 Maundrell v. Mauudrell, 1807, 1816, 1826, 1844, 1S45, 1919 Maunsell v. Hart, 564 Maury V. Mason, 2175 Mauser v. Dix, 1740 Maverick v, Donaldson, 995 V. Grier, 1718 V. Lewis, 979, looi, 1127, ir69, 1233 Mnxan v. Scott, 2012 Maxey v. Loyal, 1503, 1517 Maxfield v. Hoecker, Z059 %>. Patchen, 2055 Maxon v. Gray, 716, 734^ 735, 741, 848 Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co., 70 zi. McAfee, 72 V. Brooks, 2121 zi. Maxwell, 1975 V. Reed, 1506 May V. Calder, 735, 1023 ?'. Duke, 1718 V. Hook, 2344 V. Joyes, ^87 V. Le Claire, 1661, 1761, 2322 V. May, 645, 873, 877 ZI. Parker, 1900, 1901 V. Rawson, 2151 May z>. Rice, 1027 V, Rumney, 711, 7t7, 870, 871 V. Slaughter, 1723 V. Taylor, 1707 V. Tillman, 764 Mayberr>' w. Johnson, 1284 V. Brien, 762, 766, 824, 829, 866, 940, 1492 z'. Bryan, 783 Mayer v. McLure, 354 V. Moller, ro66 V. Mordecai, 1664 Mayers v. Paxton, 1383, 1467 Mayfield v, Maasden, 1420 Mayliam v. Combs, 2008 Mayhew v. Cricket, 2172 V. Durfee, 1895 Mayho v. Buckhurst, 1074 V. Cotton, 1419 Mayn zk Mayn, 1884 Maynard v. Esher, 2223 zj. Hunt, 2128, 2129 V. Maynard, 216, 1016, 1243, 2014, 2035 V. Valentine, 5 Maynes z/. Moore, 1517 Mayo V. Blount, 2357 V. Carrington. 2, 307, 309, 310 V. Cartwright, 2302 V. Fletcher, 2065, 2066, 2077, 2186, 2187 zt. Judah, 2051 V. Merrick, 2108 V. Newiiolf, 1 186 V. Shattuck, 2261 Mayor v. Athrop, 2332 V. Colies, 1197 V. Darmon, 2332 V. Elliott, 1555 V. Latton, 1019 V. Mebie, 975, 982, 983, 985 V. Pearl, 2273 V. Wylie, 1020 Mayor of Baltimore v. Warren Mfg, Co., igS Mayor of Hamilton v. Hudson, 202. 307 Mayor of Hull v. Homer, 22151 Mayor of Kingston v. Horner, 518 Mayor of Lpndon v. Tench. 1040 Mayor of New York v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co., 1189 V. Lord, 5 v. Mabie, 1065, 1080, 1081, 1082 V. Slack, 5 ZK Stuyvesant, 1851 Mayor of Philadelphia v. Permanent Bridge Co., 1223 Mayor of Stafford z>. Till, 1332 Mayor of Thetford 7'. Tyler, 1133, 1317 Mayor, etc., of Colchester zi. Lowton, 2331, 2342 Mayson v. Sexton, 456, 463, 464 Maywood v. Johnston, 1375 V. Logan, 1197 Mazyck zj. Vanderhost, 383 McAdam zi. Walker, 595 McAfee v. Eettis, 929 V. Ferguson, 794 McAlesterz*. Landers, ri66 McAHster v. Hovauger, 892 V. Montgomery, 1965 McAllister 7/. Commonwealth, 1719 V. Shaw, 233s V. Tate. 345 McAlpin w. Powell, 1082, 1182 McAlpine zi. Burnett, 2006 v. Woodruff. 2268 ZI. Zitzer, 2079 McArthur v. Carrie, 872 V. Franklin, 840, g25, 926, 2073, 2173 V. Gordon, 1665, 1724 V. Schenck, 2071 V. Scott, 1682 V. Sears, logg McBee, Ex parte, 76 McBeth V. Trahue, 1923 McBrayer v. Cariker, 1578 References are to pa^es. TABLE OF CASES. clxvii McBiide's Estate, 650, 652 McBride v. Smyth, 1673, 1675, 1797 T. Williams. 645 McHuniey zf. Mclntyre, 1104, 1113 McCabe v. Bellows, 802, 840, 873, 879, 926, 927, 92S, 1494, 2074 z/. Grey, 212 1 V. Mazzuchelli, 1421, 1422 7/. Swap, S03, 805, 806, 80S, 809 McCable v. Hunter, 501 McCaffarty v. Griswold, 1245 v. McCafferty, 769, 771, 772, 920, 1376 V. Spuyteii Duyvil, 1194, 1195 McCatTery v. Woden, 2020 McCaffrey v. Woodiu, 1051, 2017, 2018 McCain v. Pickens, 1794 McC-iU V. Cawthorn, 2064 7'. Lenox, 2064 V. Walter, 123 v. Yard, 2147 McCall's Lessee 2>. Carpenter, 1973 McCallam v. Carsell, 1783 V. Carswell, 17S1 McCalUster v. Brand's Heirs, 945, 947, 948 7>. Willey, 1637 McCallum v. Germantown Water Co., 2238 McCammon v. Wheeler & Wilson Go., 998 McCampbell v. RlcCambell, 497, 645 McCandless' Appeal, 1988 McCandless' Estate, 1781 McCandless v. Warner, 1691 McCann v, Rathbone, 1140, 1266, 1294 McCanna z*. Johnston, 13 10 McCants v. Bee, 1707, 1708, 1759. 1764, 1766, 1776 McCardley v. Barricklow, 2242 McCarron v. Cassidy, 208S McCartee 7>. Camel, 522, 523 V. Campbell, 522 V. Ely, 987 V. Teller, 899, 929, 933, 951, 953, 954, 957, 958, 960 V. Orphans' Asylum Soc, 224, 1541, 1565 McCarthy's Estate, 94 McCarthy v. Graham, 2167 . V. McCarthy, 1783 • V. Marsh, 217, 221 V. Van Der Mey, 1520 McCartney v. Bone, 872 V. Hunt, 1212 McCarty z'. Carter, 121 1 V. Kitchenman, 2241 z'. Terry, 221, 1637 McCaskle v. Amaune, 2365 McCaslin v. State. 2081, 2187 McCaughal v. Ryan, 1603 McCauley's Exrs. v. Dismal Swamp Land Co., 742 McCauley v. Fulton. 1965 V. Grimes, 760, 763, 765, 766, 804, 817,826, 829, 830 McCausland's Estate, 751, 752 McCausland v. McCausland, 596 McCaw V. Burk, 959 McChandles z/. Engle, 202 McClafferty 7j. Spuyten Duyvil, 1193 McClain v. Doe d. Malone, 1309 V. Gregg, 1365 McClanahan z'. Henderson, 1708, 1726, 1768 V. Porter, 731, 791, 841, 844, 874, 891 McClane v. White, 2047 McClaren v. Spaulding, 1127 McClaryz/. Bixby, 1425, 1451 McCleary v. Edwards, 1166 v. Ellis, 249, 252, 499 McClellanz/. McClellan, 1590, 1592, 1696 McClenaghan v. McClenaghan, 223 McClenny v. Floyd, 1677 ' McClintock's Appeal. 56 McClintockz/. Criswell, i2it McClosky V. Miller, 2271 McClowry v. Cloghan's Admr., 1245 McClung V. Ross, 1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 2295 McClure^S Appeal, 76 McClure v. Douthitt, 328, 333 V. Harris, 765, 777, 804 V. McClure, 1271 z'. Melton, 2096 V. Miller, 659, 995 McClure's Heirs 7>. Douthitt, 306, 310 McClurg's Appeal, 665 ]VI,cClurg V. Phillips, 2038 McClurkam 7'. Thompson, 2050, 2051 McClurken v. McClurken, 1394 McClui-y?'. Schwartz, 727 McColl V. Fraser, 1762 McCoUough's Appeal, 1858 McCollough V. Gilmore, 259, 306, 331, 333, 348 McComb p. Wallace, 1272 McCombe v. Weight, 522 McCombs V. Becker, 2272 McConnaughy v. Baxter, 1420, 1433, 1441, 1442, 1459 McConnell v. Blood, 109, 120, 126, 132, 133, 134^ 138, 2080 z>. Bowdry's Heirs, 1160, 1216 V. Brayner, 1700 V. HoUowbush, 2087 7'. Kibbe, 1979 7/, Martin, 1919 v. Reed, 1777, 2321, 2322, 2365 V. Scott, 2141 V. Smith, 309, 353 z/. Varey, 1978 V. Wenrich, 663 McCord V. McCord, 1806 McCormack v. Digby, 2106 V. Sullivan, 367, 368, 720 McCormic 7/. Leggett, 1031 McCormick v. Bishop, 64, 63, 507 V. Connell, 1061, 1154 V. Crogan, 1701 V. Gorgan, 1616 z'. Grogan, 1644 V. Hunter, S95 V. Irwin, 2177 V. Knox, 2074, 2172 V. Rusch, 1511 V. Sullivant, 2057, 2058, 2288, 2289, 2339 V. Taylor, 847, 861 V. Young, 2261, 2262 McCorry z*. King's Heirs, 489, 513, 516, 586> 590, 591, 600, 603, 613 McCoster v. Brady, 299, 1595, 1606, 1753, 1788 McCotter z*. Lawrence, 2314 McCoy V. Bateman, 2257 V. Scott, 1021,2252, 2257, 2259 McCracken v. Hayward, 1512 7'. Harris, i4q9 V. Rogers, 2279 z/. San Francisco, 2342 McCrackin v. Wright, 2322, 2323 _ McCrackin, Jackson ex d., v. Wiight, 829 McCrae, Jackson ex d., v. Mancius, 489, 497, 501- 514. 5^5. 5i6» 744 McCraken v. Hall, 115, 142, 14& McCraney v. Alden, 2060 V. McCraney, 749, 750* 75Ij 769) 770t 77>» 862, 920 McCranklin v. McCranklin, 636,725, 1359 McCrary v. Slaughter, 1241 McCray 71. Samuel, 2272 McCrea, Jackson ex d., &. Dunlap, ioi6 V. Purmort, 1700 McCready f. Guardians, 1731 McCreary v. Boston & M. R. Co., 2243 V. Casey, 1648, 1651 V. Guardians, 1731 V. McCreary, 662, 2365 V. Marston, 1216 V. Osborne, 135 McCreery ?'. Allender, 215, 2014 ?'. Shaffer, 1490 McCrickett v. Wilson, 2165, 2167 clxviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. McCroan v. Pope, 1562 McCroskey v. Walker, 1439, 1440 McCruder v. Peter, 1023 McCuan v, Turretitine, 141 1 McCubbin v. Cromwell, 736, 783, 1589, 1598, 1691, 1734 McCue V. Gallagher, 1646 McCufEey v. Finley, 2147 McCulloch V. Good, 2274 McCullom V. Turpee, 2153, 2180 McCullough's Appeal, 271 McCullough V. Allen, 917 V. Andersou, 1821 V. Cox, 1854 •V. Dobson, 1048 V. Ford, 1646 V. Gilmore, 249, 261, 262, 263, 266, 267, 499 V. Gliddon, 292 V. Irvine, 565 V. Valentine, 687, 699 McCully V. Smith, 836 McCumber v. Gilman, 2185 McCune v. McMichael, 2302 McCurdy v. Canning, 1024, 1920, 1923, 1939, 1940, 1944. 1951. 1952 McDaniel v Colvin, 2027 V. Carroll, 1984 V. Douglas, 933 McDearmau ti. McClure, 1906 McDemottT^. Burke, 2065, 2173 McDermont v. Burke, 975, 1028 V. French, 1920, 1938, 1939, 1950 McDermutt v. Strong, 2083 McDevitt TJ. Lambert, 1330, 1340 V. Sullivan, 2258 McDill V. McDill, 2352 McDonald v. Badger, 1419, 1947 V. Black, 2113, 2114, 2117 V. Crandall, 1381, 1450, 1453, 1460, 1468, 1469, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1495, 1522 V. Gayle, 1260, 13 13 ■V. Heylin, 504, 509 V. Lindall, 2207 V. McDonald, 1782, 2151 V. Sims, 1781 V. Stewart, loio, 2259 V. Walgrove, 338 V. Whitney, 2154 McDonel v. State, 217 McDonough v. Gilman, 1199 V. Murdoch, 1676 V. O'Neil, 1643, 1760,2045 V. Squire, 2043 McDougal 7K Bradford. 1950 McDougald v. Hepburn, 817 McDowell V. Adams, 2252, 2257,2259 V, Brown, 249 V. Fisher, 2025, 2059 V. Goldsmith, 1781 V, Gran, 1842 V. Hendrix, 2262 V. Simpson, 523, 981, 997, 1013, 1018, 1041, 1042, 1254, 1255, 1264, 1284, 1308, 1314, 1321, 1323, 1338 McDuff V. Beauchamp, 1024, 1942, 1952 McDugald V. Hepburn, 782 McElderry v. Flannagan, 2269 V Shipley, 1697, 1699 McEImoyne v. Cohen, 2299 McElroy v. Bixby, 1410, 1414, 1425 V. McElroy, 1592, 1797 McFadden v. Jenkyns, 1587 V. Vincent, 1034 McFardin i^. Rippey, 2268 McFarlan v. Febeger's Heirs, 909, 912 V. Watson, 1107, 1124 McFarland v. Chase, 1266, 1294 V. Febeger's Heirs, gii, 924 V. Fish. J42S 7'. Goodman, 1481 McFarlane v. Feberger's Heirs, goi McFarlane -v. Williams, 999, 1043 McFerran v. Davis, 1794 McFerriu v. White, 2152 McGanz;. Marshall, 985, 2104, 2343 McGangley v. Henry, H20 McGarron v. Cassidy, 2053 McGarvey v. Puckett, 1141 McGary v. Hastings, 1166 McGaughey's Admrs. v. Henry, 1815 McGaughney v. Henry, 821 McGaw v^ Cannon, 13 14, 1338 McGee v. Davie, 2165 V. Ellis, 1773 7'. Fitzer, 2020 V. Gibson, 1262, 1272. 1289, 1297, 1329 V. McGee, 893, 899, 2296 V, Morgan, 2296, 2297 V. Rice, 1472, i486 V. Roen, iioi McGehee z/. McGehee, 840, S41, 844 McGill V. Ash, 1903 McGilHvray v. Evans, 1988 McGinnis's Appeal, 2138 McGinnis v. Fernandes, 1207 V, Porter, 1145, 1150 V. State, 1515 McGirr 7/. Aaron, 1541, 1599 McGiven v. Wheelock, 811, 2134 McGlashan v. Tallmadge, io65, 1175 McGlynn v. Butler, 1006 V. Moore, 1060, 1154, 1156 McGoon V. Ankens, 2303 V. Scales. 1655, 1656, 1746 McGovem v. Knox, 1646 McGowan v. Baldwin, 1421 V. McGowan, 778, 1634, 1640, 1651 V. Smith, 783 McGowen v. Sennett, 1338 McGrane v. Archibald, 1872 McGrath v. City of Boston, 992, 993 V. Sinclair, 1424, 1425 McGready v. McGready, 2031, 2051 McGreary v. Osborne, 137 McGregor z/. Brown, 54, 55, 543, 549, 555, 564, 566 z/. Comstock, 210, 211, 217, 401, 401, 43K, 2289 ^^ V. Rawle, 1310, 1333 V. Williams, 2074 McGuire v. Grant, 198, 2231, 2232,2233, 2234 V. McGowp.n, 1635 V. Miller, 1624 V. Van Pelt, 1425, 2015, 2160 McGulich V. McAllister, 2274 McGunnagle v. Thornton, 1018 McHendry v. Reilly, 1497, 2005 McHenry v. Carson, 2263 V. Cooper, 2178 V. Reilly, 1491 V. Yokum, 746 Mcllvaine v. Harris, 46 V. Smith, 1747 Mcllvane v. Kadel, 985 V. Smith, 253 Mclntire v. Norwich F, Ins. Co., 2116 •V. Patton, 1213 V. Plaisted, 2118 V. Shaw 2038 Mcintosh V. Ladd, 728, 795, 914 Mclnturf v. Woodruff, 1457 Mclntyre v. Chappel, 1456 V. Ramsey, 332, 536 V. Stedman, 1018 V. Strong, 10 1 7 Mclver v. Cherry, 782, 940, 214S V. Eastbrook, 122 McKay d. Miimford, 1131, 1135 McKeagre v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 105, 108, 109, 121, 132, 139 McKean v. Brown, 771 McKee v. Brooks, 983 V. Cottle, 603 References are to pages. McKee v. Cuttle, 6gj V. Hicks, 2339 V. Judd, 719. 839 V, McKinley, 1674 V, Pfout, 20S, 516, 987 V. Reynolds, 908 •u. Straub, 1974, 1977 V. Wilcox, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1452 McKee's Lessee v. Pfout, 666 McKeilham v. Terry, 151 1, 1517 McKelway v. Cook, 983 7'. Seymour, 1862 McKenkie's Appeal, 1814 McKenna v. Hammond, ro6, 136 McKennan v. Phillips, 1561 McKenzie v. Jones, 404, 447, 470,600 V. Lampley, 49, 2020 V. Lexington, 1160, 1163 V. Murphy, 1395 McKeoii 71. Whitney, I118 McKercher. In re, i3«"g McKey v. Welch, 191 i McKie ?'_. Anderson, 1219 McKildoe's Exr. 7'. Darracott, 1156 McKillip V. McKillip, 1666 McKim 7'. Mason, 104, 114, 116, 133, 138, 2065 McKinley v. Kuntx, 907 V. Peter, 1925 McKinn v. Mason, 1998 McKinneyz'. Abbott, 2285 V. Carroll, 1511 V. Kinney, 2298 V. Miller, 2153, 2180 V. Peck, 1131, 1315, 1316 V. Reader, 1160 V. Rhodes, 2355 V. Stewart, 291 V. Stocks, 532 McKinster v. Babcocks, 2022, 2023, 2027 McKinstry v. Conley, 2168 V. Conly, 2051 z'. Mervin, 2140 McKircher v. Hawley, 2064, 2066 McKissack v. Bullington, 981 ^[cKissick V, Pickle, 1850 McKnight v. Bell, 1977, 1978 V. Wimer, 1810 McKowen v. McGuire, 1456 McKune v. Montgomery, 1219 McLachlan v. McLachlan, 1S63 McLain v. Nelson, 2354 RIcLanahan v. Wyant, 1978 McLanez/. Paschal, 1513 McLaren v. Coombs, 106 V. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 2116 McLarren v. Brewer, 1622 V. Spaulding, 1 167 McLaughlin v. Bamum, 176S V. Cosgrove, 2059 V. Curtis, 2073 z'. Curts, 2172 7'. Green, 2079 V. Uimsen, 2120 V. Johnson, 96, 103, 105, 107, 2036, 2120 V. Long, 570 V. McLaughlin, 847, 858 V. Nash, 107, 129, 132, 135 V. Shepherd, 2039 McLaurie v. Partlow, 1592, 1691 V. Thomas, 2153 McLaurin v. Wright, 2052 McLawlin v. Salley, 1246 McLean v. Earee, 390 V. Borce, 370 V. Bovee, 47, 339 V. Lafayette Bank, 1770 V. McDonald, 338, 1595 V Nelson, 1704 V. Ragsdale, 2 141 V. Rockey, 1225 V. Spratt, 1154, 1340 V. Sullivan, 1612 TABLE OF CASES. clxix McLean v. Swanton, 2289 V. Towle, 21.18 McLearn v. McLellan, 2005 McLeery v. McLeery, 798, 8rg, 820 McLellan v. Jenness, 1904, 1969 V. Turner, 535, 536 McLemore v. Manson, 729 McLenan v. Sullivan, 1642, 1646 McLeod 7>. Davis, 1021 V. Evans, 1762 7'. McDoniiel, 916, 934, 947 McMahan v. Kimball, 711, 783 7'. Russell, 2063 7'. Stewart, 2070 McMahilW/. McMahill, 1412 MciMahn v. McMahn, 1077 McMahon z>. Burchell, 1894 V. McGraw, 1643. 2364 zi. Russell, 510, gii, 928 V. Williams, 2217 McManus, In re, 2021 V. Campbell, 1421, 1/22 V. Carmichael, 69 7'. Cooke, 564 V. Crickett, 1195 McMeehen v. Marman, 1579 McMeekin v. Edmonds, 1768 McIMiken v. Board of Directors of University, 60 McMillan v. Anderson, 2324 V. Carson Hill Union Mining Co., 1332 7'. Otis. 2084 V. Richards, 1993, 1995, 1999 V. Solomon, 66, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1175, 1176 ZI. Sprague, 1517 V. Turner, 847 7'. Warner, 1455, 1465 McMillan's Lessee v. Robbins, 504, 1141 McMiller 7/. Mavo. 996 McMillon V. Robins, 744 McMullan 7'. Warner, 1460. 1461 McMullen v. Riley, 996 McMurray v. Montgomerj', 1735 V. Shuck, 139S, 1400 McMurphey v. Campbell, 878 McMurphy 7'. Minot, 1060, 1117, 1154, 1164, iggS McMurty v. Brown, 2338 McNab V. Young, 1548 2315 McNabb v. Bond, 38 McNair z'. Funt, 2295 V. Lot, 2095, 2175 V. Picotte, 2129 71. Swartz, 2261, 2270 McNally v. Connolly, 123 McNaniara v. Culver, 2044, 2052 7'. Seaton. 2296 McNeal v. Emerson, 56 McNamee v. Moreland, 2299 McNeeley v. Hart, 1233 McNees z>. Swaney, 2168 McNeil 7'. Ames, 1057, 1072, 1115, 1142 V. Kendall, 1072, 1112, 1115, 1121, 1123, 1139, 2257 McNeill V. Norsworthy, 2043 McNew V. Booth, 2174 McNish V. Guerard, 300, 1606, 1662 V. Pope, 1 62 1 McNulty V. Cooper, 1594 Mcpherson v. Acher, 2242 V. Cox, 1661, 1662 V. Featherston, 2295 V. Hayward, 2175 V. Rollins, 1792 McOuade v. Emmons, 1272, 1287, 1288 McQueen v. Farquhar, 1669, 167a V. Turner, 1982 McQuem v. Middleton Manuf. Co., 1555 McQuesten zi. Morgan, io6r, 1154, 1155 McQuircT/. Benoit, 2076 V. Rag, 2018 McRea z/. Central National Bank of Troy, 97, III, 112, 114, lib, 117, 132 clxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. McRea v. Farrow, 1840 McRe^'s Admrs. v. Means, 1593, 1629 McReynolds v. State, 757 McRimmons v. Martin, 2006 McTaffgart v. Thompson, 2063 McTavish v. Carroll, 2215, 2245 Mc ^eigh V. Sherwood, 2153 ]V[cVev V. McQuality, 1622 McWhite v. Roberts, 711 McWilliams v. Bones, 1382 V. Martin, 326 ». Nisly, 249, 255, 259, 261, 263, 267, 272, 1858 McWinn v. Richmonds, 985 Meacham v. Steele, 299, 810, 1606 Mead v. Leffingwell, 2293, 2298 V. Mead, 925 V. Orrery, 1667 %'. York, 2134 V. Randolph, 1677, 2046 Meade v. Thompson, 2272 Meader v. City of Carondelet, 1080, 1081 V. Meader, 1421 V. Place, 1403, 1405, 1407, 1462, 1463, 1472 V. Stone, 1356 V. White, 2061 Meador v. Meador, 2004 Meadow v. Wise, 2020 Meads -v. Lansingh, 1648 Mealior ?». Pomeroy, 1285 Meakings v. Cromwell, 1842 Means v. Wells, 208 Meason's Estate, 42, 44 Measure v. Gee, 424 Mebane v. Mebane, 251, 253, 257 Mechanics' Bank, Matter of, 1599 Mechnnics' Bank v. Williams, 486, 634, 635 Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 1764 Mechanics & Traders' Ins. Co. v. Scott, 971, 978> 970, 1079 Mechelen v. Wallace, 46 Mechler v. Phcenix Ins. Co., 2114 Meddock v. Williams, 904 Mede v. Hand, igio Medford v. Frazier, 1895 V. Learned, 671 Media ik v. Downing, 1948 Medley v. Elliott, 21 10 V. Medley, 815, 820, 826, 888 Medmsr v. Medmer, 1646 Medsker v. Parker, 2153 Medway v. Needham, 753 Meech v. Ensign, 2166 V. Estate of Meech, 1451 V. Fowler, 2355 Meeds v. Wood, 307 Meehan v. Forrester, 2169 V. Meehan, 664 Meeker v. Claghom, 2147 V. Meeker, 1700, 2349 V. Winthrope Iron Co., 1019 V. Wright, 646, 1920, 1951, 1952 Meeks v. Bowerman, 1200 Meeting St. Bap. Soc. v. Hail, 1796 Megehe v. Draper, 1514 Meggison v. Moore, 347, 1630, 1632 Megianis v. Nunamaker, 493 Mehaffey v. Dobbs, 19 15 Meig's Appeal, 104, 112, 115, 120, 126, 135 Meiggs V. Meiggs, 1791 Mei' ^S°9 V. Miller, 666, 744, 755, 18S3, i8g6, igog, clxxii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. 1910, igig, ig20, 1930, 1951, 1967, 19781 1983, 1988, 2225, 2228 Miller V. Moore, 2001 V. Morris, 1181 V. Muilin, i88g ». Musselman, 2120 2'. Myers, igij ■V. Piatt, 1917, 2291 1). Plumb, 103, 104, 105, 128, 135, 137 ■V. Potterfield, 1821 T. Ridgely, 1315, 1316 ». Shackleford, 210, 591, 744, 1307, 1315, 1319, 2346 v. Sharp, 2156 V. Schnebly, 1449, 1467 V. Shields, 552, 1067, 1152, 1153 z/. Sparks, 1154 V. Stagiier, 2250 'V. State, 51 V. Stokely, 2046 V. Stump. 777, 781, 782, 804 V. Thatcher, 1590, 1697 i). Thompson, 1624, 2071 V. Tipton, 2015 7). White, 757 V. Winchell, 2137 V. Wison, 728, 781, 7S2, 795, 915, 962, 1538 V. Woodman, 733, 736, 739 Miller, Den ex d,, v. Miller, 852, 859 Miller's Exrs. v. Miller, g6i, 962 Milligan's Appeal, 2136, 2138, 2153 Milligan v. Poole, 1987 V. Wedge, 1193 1). Neher, 2020 Milling V. Becker, 1335, 1342, 1343 Millinger v. Bosman, 633 Millikeu -v. Bailey, 208S Millikinw. Ifrown, 1915 V. Ham, 2033 V. Weljiver, 938, 946, 048 Mill River, etc., Co. v. Smith, 73 Mills V. Argall, 1795 V. Bank, 1832 V. Comstocic, 2098 V. Dennis, 2145, 2146 V. Estate of Grant, 1378, 1419, 144S, 1483, 1514, 1515 •v. Fogal, 368, 2058, 228 V. Gore, 2035 11. Graves, 2302 V. Haines, 1599 V. Harris, 1795 f. Matthews, 1211 7). Merryman, 2251, 2252, 2258 V. Mills, gi6, 935, 941, 965, 2055, 2168 ■V. Morris, 959 •V. Newberry, 1684 V. Peed, 2258 V. Van Voorliies, 588, 708, 716, 727, 766, 782, 783, 800, 801, 925, 940, 2173 V. Witherington, 1986 Millspaugh v. McBride, 520, 2096, 2 131 Milne -v. Moreton, 367, 720, 2057, 2288 J V. Schmidt, 1512 Milner it. Freeman, 650 V. Ramsey, 2009 Milroyz/. Lord, 1587 Miltimore v. Miltimore, 662, 771, 919, 920, 1359 Milton V. Colby, 139, 140, 2022 ■V. Grenville, 92 V. Haden, 982, 1045, 1221 V. Hudson River Steamboat Co., 1248 V. Milton, 856 Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. James, 98 V. Soutter,g8 Mims V. Lockett, 2007 V. Macon W. R. Co. 2007 V. Mims, 2122, 2149 Miner v. Beekman, 2151, 2174, 2175,2185 T. Brown, ig4i V. Gilmour, 2225 Hiner v. Lorman, ig22 V. Smith, 2150 V. Stevens, 1354 Miners Bank v. Heiner, 2282 Mineral Point R. Co. v. Keep, 1554 Mines, Case of, 86 Mineville, Succes.sion of, 660 Minigle v. City of Boston, 1129 Miniter v. Miniter, 8g8, 957 Minnesota v. Worthington, 5g4 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., g8 Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Beebe, 1657 Minning w. Batdorff, 315 Minor v. Mayor, 2295 r. Rogei-s, 1587, i5g3 V. Sharon, 1200 V. Willoughby, 1018, 1041 Minot w. Mitchell, 1620 V. Taylor, 16S2 V. Thompson, 974 Minsliall v. Lloyd, 71, 126, 130, 145, 146. 1186, 1 187 Minter v. Durham, 1883 Minturn &. Seymour, 1697, 2314, 2315 Mintzer v. St. Paul Trust Co., 1439, 1520 Minuse v. Cox, 1725. 1755, 1756 Mirick v. Hopi>en, 2064, 2258 Missionary Society v. Calvert's Admr., 4S7 Mississippi Valley, etc., R. Co. v. U. S. Express Co., 2064 Missouri Inst, for Blind -v. How, 2205 Mitchelw. Weller, 2255 Mitchell V. Badgett, 2272 ■V. Bartlett, 2066, 2162 V. Bogan, 2160, 2186 V. Burlington, 1515 V. Burnham, 799, 1992, 1993, 2031, 2032, 2040, 2102, 2 log V. Commonwealth, ggo V. Davis, 1287, 1288 V. Dors, 577 V. Froedley, 143 V. Home Ins. Co., 1224 V. Jones, 19S0 V. Kingham, 1032, 1033 V. Mayor, 2236 V. Miller, 847, 856, 860 V. Milhoan, 1503 ■7J. Moore, 1372, 1660 V- Parkham, 2363 ». Phillsbury, 1094 V. Reed, loSg V. Rvan, 598, 600, 603, 604, 614, ioi5 V. Seipel, 2241 V. Sevier, 1365, 1367 V. Skinner, 1652 V. Starbuck, 1973 zi. Stetson, 62 V. Tarbutt, 1902, 1966 V. The United States, 18 V. Walker, 2291 7J. Ward, 92g V. Warner, 1093 V. Winslow, 839, 2017, 2019 V. Woodson, 2301 V. Word, 720, 86g Mitchell's Lessee v. Mitchell, 266, 885 Mitchelson z/. Smith, 1380 Mitchenert/. Atkinson, 937 Mitchinson, Doe d., v. Carter, 1056,1057, 1105, i"3. 1973 Mitford V. Mitford, 1361 Mitnacht z/. Cocks, 976 Mittel V. Karl, 1934, 1941 Mitten v. Faudrye, 56 Mix J/. Cowles, V. Hotchkiss,2o89, 2090, 2144 Mixon V. Coffield, 1165,2251 Mizell V, Burnett, 1857 Mizner v. Russell, 2059 ■V. Munroe, 1272, 1294 Moaers v. White, 215, 216, 217,236, 279 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxiii Moak V. Coats, 734 v> Johuson, 1245 Mobile Branch Bank v. Hunt, 2130 Wobile, M. D. & M. Ins. Co. v. Huder, 2153, 2rSo Mocher v. Reeves, 20S1 Mockbe^ 71. Clagett, 415 Mocker z*. Reed, 2(^1 Model Lodging House Assoc, v. City of Bos- ton, 2og5 Moderwell v. Millison, 786, 1960 Moffatt z/. Buchanan, 1779 V. Shepard, 1643 %>. Smith, 10S3, 1 100, 1120, 1182, 2271 V. Strong, 10S2, 1 172 I\Toff2t V. Stro.ig, 226S Mogs; V. Biker, 2018 ?'. Mog5, 490, 526. 1693 Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co. v. Clufe, 43 z>. Niles, 1241 Moeaquise it v. Commissioners of Roads, 2325 Moioribanks t'. Hoveuden, 1831 Moison 7'. Doe ex d. Cooper, 346 Moltoa z*. Camroux, 1033 Molyneux v. Molyneux, 1361 Monck, Doe d., v. Geekie, 1314, 1333 Moncrief v. Ross, 76, 1S09 Monday v. Elmore, 1024 Monell V. Monell, 1733 Monkz'. C-ipen, 1411 zi. Cooper, 1179 Monkhouse z/. Holme, 314 ZI. Noyes. logS Monroe v. Armstrong, 983 V. Douglass, 36S, 2058, 2289 V. Luke, 2092 V. Merchant, 217, 799 V. Van Meter, 5S9, 656, 680, 698, 1372 Montacute v. Maxwell, 1616 Montague t>. Boston & A. R. Co., 2089 V. Dawes, 2i';9, 2161, 2163 V, Dent, log, 121, 126, 132, 134, 138, 139 V. Gay, 2269 V. Hays, 1592, i6go, 1691 V. Hail. 2272 V. Maxwell, 965 V. Richardson, 1483, 1514 V. Smith, 28, 225, g6g, 974, 1004 Montaye v. VVallahan, 2258 Montgomery, Ex parte, 120, 126 V. Agricultural Bank, 1562 V. Bevans, 523 V. Bruere, 764, 783, 1992 V. Chadwick, 2053, 2075, 2175, 2185 V. Craig, ii44j ii45. 1148 V. Dorion, 21 1, 492, 672, 774 V. Doxion, 215, 216 V. Eveleigh, 1375 V. Gibbs, 1180 V. Hickman, 1942 V. Horn, 856 1). Kirksey, i62«; V. Masonic Hall, 2235 V. McEwen, 2160 V. Middlemess, 2145, 2155 Montgomeiy v. Millikin, 327 V. Sturtevant, 2321, 2360 V. Tate, 1364, 1367 V. Tutt, 1491, 1496^ 1497^ 2156 Montpelier v. East Montpelier, 1555 Monypenny v. During, 1693 Mooberry v. Marye, 343 Moodle V. Reid, 1841 Moody z/. Aiken, 110 V, Ruck, 1896 ■ V. Farr, 202 V. Fleming, 517 V. King, 690, 691, 780, 815, 820, 826, 885, iigo, 1273 V. Moody, 1Q38, 1939 •u. Seaman, 717 V. Smoot, 1937 Moody V. Snell, 415 Mooers v. Dixon, i4!;o, 1478 V. White, 1659 Moon V, Durden, 671 V. Rolling, 2303 Mooneye/. Brinkley, 2187 V. Cooledge, 2361 V. Maas, 92^, 925, 926, 92S Moor V. Black, 733 V. Deen, 535 V. Denn, 340, 533 V. Hawkins, 1572 Moor, Denn ex d., v. Meller, 344 Moorcroft -v. Dowding, i6gi Moore's Appeal, 2068 Moore, Ex parte, 933 Moore v. Armstrong, 1723 V. Abernathy, 2286 V. Beason, 810, 2073, 2097, 2136, 2138, 2169, 2172 V. Beasley, 1149, 1213, 1315 V. Bowman, 2302 v. Boyd, 1251, 1268, 1270, 1271, 1293, 1296, 1351* 1356 V. Byers, 1750 V. Byrum, 2020 V. Cable, 2087, 2088, 2ogo, 2095, 2175 V. Chandler. 2153 V, City of New York, 709, 712, 714, 715, 71S, 725,726,731, 734, 737, 940, 741, 746, 749, 751, 767, 793, 796, 813, 821, 828, 834, 838, 869, 893, 921, 922 V. Cord, 2173 V. Cornell, 2084 V. Darby, 589 V. Dean, 343 %i. Dimond, 535, 1831 V. Dunning, 1460, 1463 V. Estey, 764, 766, 800, 815, 1993 V. Flynn, 1468, i46g V. Foley, 1008, 1009 V. Frost, 871, 930 V. Fuller, 2012, 2027 V. Harrisburgh Bank, 811 V. Harvey, 2270 V. Hegeman, 755 V. Hilton, 1707, 1769 V. Hollins, 783 V. Jackson, 983, 1742 V. Kent, 711, 721, 722, 723,725 V. Little Rock, 2085 V. Loose, 1 165 V. Luce, 490, 517, 520, 2300 V. Lyons. 314, 316 V. ^Iadden, i6gg V. Mandlebaum, 1621 V. Mason, 1356 V. Mayor, 798 V. Mayor of New York, 819 V. Miller, looi V. Moore, 1285, 1330, 1465, 1589, 1919, 1940, 1974, 2343 V. Morrow, 1347, 1350 V. Page, 645 V. Pickett, 1592, i6gi V. Pitts, 1113, 1856 V. Plymouth, 266 V. Reaves, 142 1, 1422 V. Ranson, 2222, 2245, 2246, 2247 V. Raymond, 2007 V. Richardson, 1364 V. Rollins, 89, 765, 766, 802, 8ii, 812, 940 V. Sanders, 1853, i860 V. Savill, i860 ■o. Shaw, 2165, 2167 V. Schultz, 1559, 1561, 1565, 1655 V. Smaw, 83, 84, 85, 88 V. Smith, 115, 123, 145, 1289 V, Spellman, 1713 V. Spruill, 1234 V. State, 1518 V. Thomas, 903, 203S clxxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Moore v. Thompson, 2298 V. Tisdale, 750, 775, 909 V. Titman, 1028,2080, 2086 V. Townshend, 1277 V, Turpin, 11 17, 2259 V. Valentine, 139 •V. Vinter, 1365, 1366, 1369, 1370 z*. Wade, 2045, 2047 V. Waller, 847,861 V. Ware, 2103, 2148 V. Watson, 2126 V. Webb, 317, 338, 2228 7*. Webber, 11 67 V. Weber, 1066, 1079, 1081, 1082, 1127, 1191, iig6, 1202 V. Webster, 680, 684, 698, 1372 V. Whittis, 1387, 1431, 1434, 1439 V. Worthy, 832 Moores v. Wait, 560 Moors V. De Bervales, 767 V, Moors, 661 Moot V. Buxton, 1605 Moran z*. Bank of Commerce, 1754 V. Palmer, 786 V. Somes, 663 Mordant v. Thorold, 870 Mordecai -v. Parker, 1595, 1707 More V. Freeman, 648 V. Herrick, 1648 Moreen v. Ditchemendy, 893 V. Saffara, 1956, 1962 Moreau v. Saffaranas. 786 Morehead v. Watkyns. 996, 1254, 1307, 1322, 1337 Morehouse v. Cotheal, 402,414,470,477,544, 555 Moreland v. Myall, 51 Morey v. Abemathy, 2343 V. Heriick, 1634 Morgan v. Abergavenny, 60 V. Arthur, 137 V. Bruttou, 1878, 1882 z/, Boone, 1613 V. Conn, 857 z/. Cox, ig8 V. Curtenius, 1516 ■v. Curtis, 29 •V. Davies, 1311, 1336 V. Davis, 2129 V. Elam, T375, 1562 V. Herrick, i88g, 1890 V. King, 193, 1587 V. Lones, 1948 7). Moore, 1597 ■V. Morgan, 598, 611, 654, 656, 678,679, 683, 684, 688, 689, 1267, 1372, 1893, 2094,2175 V. Neville, 1515 z*. Plumb, 2157 V. Reading, 69 -v. Sackett, 801 z/. Slaughter, 257 V. Staley, 19S0, 1981 •V. Steams, 1378, 1421, 1443, 1445, 1496, 1503 •V. Thames Bank, 647 V. United States, 1275, 1281, 1329, 1342, 1343 V. Wilkins, 2165 Morgan County v. Allen, 1581 Moriarty v. Martin, 1627 Morice V. Bishop of Durham, 1683 Moring v. Ward, 983, 990, 1002 Morley v. Morley, 1664, 1725, 1728 V. Rennoldson, 270, 271 Morphett v. Jones, 994 Morrall v- Jacob, 1791 V. Sutton, 531 •V. Watterson, 1697, 1700 Moran v. McLarty, 2330 V. Somes, 1952, 1953 Morrell v. Dickey, 1835 Morrant v. Gougn, 1797 Morret v. Paske, 76, 1708 Morrice v. Antrobus, 2252 Morrill v. Hopkins, 1450, 1467 V. Mackman, 983, 1010, 1013, 1322, 2212, 2260 V. Morrill, 1973, 1982, 1988, 2173 z>. Noyes, 201S, 2019 Morris' Appeal, 125 Morris z;. Bacon, 2107, 2108 V. Clay, X032 z/. Edgington, 1166,2222 •V. Floyd, 2122 V. French, 2021 u. Hastings, 1947 V. Henderson, 2 V. Joseph, 1618, 1771 z/. Miller, 758 V. Morris, 670 V. Mowatt, 799 V. Niles, 1319,1324, 1328 V. Nixon, 2037, 2046, 2048, 2049, 2i6g V. Oakford, 2178 V. Pate, 2008 V. Phaler, 317 •V. Potter, 321 V. Russel, 2335 V. Sargent, 1450, 1473 V. Showerraan, 9S3 V. Tillson, 1083 •V. Vanderen, 149 V. Wallace, 1719, 1721, 1724 If. Ward, 1450, 1475, 1478, 1502 V. Way, 20T4 V. Wheeler, 2148 Morris Canal Co. v. Mitchell, 1273, 1287, 1288 Morrison's Case, 756 Morrison v. Abbott, 1431 D. Bean. 1502, 2160 V. Beirer, 1587 V. Berry, 127, 140 V. Bowman, 918, 942, 943 V. Biaud, 2045, 2052 V. Buckner, 2067, 2188 V. Chadwick, 1168, 1174 V. Clark, 1947 V. Kelley, 1703, T766, 1777 V. Kinstra, 1592 V. Marquadt, 2223 V. Mendenhall, 2100, 2101 V. Rice, 893 V. Rossignol, 971, 1008, 1009, 1053 •V. Semple, 305, 308 V. Shuster, 1795 V. Stewart, 594 V. Thistle, 647, 648, 895, 896 V. Watson, 1522 Morroney's Appeal, 2120 Morrow v. Morgan, 2152 V. Morrow, 938 V. Scott, 2280 V. Turner. 2001, 2079 Morse v. Aldrich, 1076 V. Churchill, 2296, 2297 V. Copeland, 2211, 2240 V. Goddard, 1081, 1119, ii6g, 1170, 1171, 2065 V. Goold, 1510; 1511, 1517, 1518 V. Hayden, 1869 V. Maddox, 1082, iig6 V. Merritt, 1277 V. Morse, 1980 V. Roberts, 1221 V. Royal, 1621, 1707, 1767, 1772, 1775 V. Shattuck, 1538, 2349 V. Smith, 2r7i V. Whitcher, 2066 Morsell v. First Nat. Bank of Washington, 1747 Mortgage Co. v. Norton, 1489 Mortlock V. Buller. 1758 Morton v. Barrett, 288, 299, 300, 1534, 1553, 1560, 1583, 1594, 1597, 1606, 1710, 1712 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxv Morton t/. Ball, zogo V. McCanless, 1520 V. Noble, 792, 793, 1999, 2076 V. Ragan, 1481 V. Robard. 2365 V. Scholefteld, 2231 V. Souibgate, 1577, 1739 V. Tewart, 1691 i>. Woods, 1050, 1058, 1294 Mory V. Michael, 1822 Mosby z*. Mosby, 1811 Moseley v. Marshall, 50S, 511 Moser. In re^ 125 Moses V. Levi, 1733 V. McPherson, irSo V. Murgatroyd, 1885 Mosgrove v. Bouser, 2 121 Mosher v. Mosher, 789, 797, 822, 841, 842, 940 V. Vehne, 2086 V. Yost, 525, 976 Moshi^rz'. Meeks, 2004, 2007 V. Norton, 2087 V. Reding, loor, 1160, 1122, 1290, 1310, , i3'5. 1334. 1336 Mosier s Appeal, 2177, 2138 Mosle V. Ruhlan, 2359 Mosley v. Mosley, 1820 Moss's Appeal, 1581 Moss V. Gallimore, 2065 V. Moss, 1622. 1646 V. Sheldon, 2S7 V. Warner, 1457, 1462, 1483, 1514 Mossy V. Mead, 1316 Mostyn v. West Mostyn Coal & Iron Co., 1080 Mostyne v. Lancaster, 1039 Motley V. Blake, 1984 V. Jones, 1242 V. Whitemore, 1933, 1940, 1951 Mott V. Buxton, 299, 1607 V. Clark, 215S z/. Coddington, 1285 V. Palmer, 20, 27, 6r, 122 V. Schoolbred, 2248 Motteux w. The London Assurance Co., 1742 Moulton V. Cornish, 2144, 2145 V. Cramroux, 9S7, 1034 V. Moore, 9S4 V. Robinson, 1234 Mounce v. Byars, 2003, 2005, 2006 Mounsey v. Ismay, 2204, 2211 Mount V. Morton, 2978 V. Potls, 2t54, 2179, 2180 V. Vaile, 850 Mount Holly v. Andover, 594 Mt. Vernon Mfr. Co. v. Summit Ins. Co., 2166 Mountain City Market House, etc., Assoc, v. Kearns, 1284, 1305 Mountford z>. Cadogan, 1786 Movan v. Hays. 1590 Mower v. Fletcher, 2308 V. Kemp, 1863 Mowrey v. Sheldon, 2247 V. Wood, 2111 Mowry v. Wood, 2015 Mowser v. Mowser, 773, 887, 891 Moxley v. Ragan, 1506 Moyer v. Drummond, 1397, 1425, 1432 V. Pennsylvania Slate Co., 1515 Moyle v. Ewer, 1267 V. Moyle, 561, 1720 Moynahan v. Moore, 2131 Mozart Building Association -u. Frisdjen, 1355 Mucklow & Fuller, 1733. Mueller v. Engeln, 1777 Muggeridge's Trusts, 272, 1677 Muir V. Berkshire, 2137 Mulcarry z'. Eyre, 1141 Muldoon V. Hite, 2262, 2264 Muldowney v. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 643 Mulford V. Laframe, 2357 V. Minch, 1745, 1776 V, Peterson, 810, 2100, 2102, 2107 Mulhollan v. Thompson, 831 MuUaney v. MuUaney, 654. 656, 675, 6S7, 1609 Mullanphy 7). Simpson, 2075 Mullen 7'. St. John, 1197, iiyS V Strieker, 2223 MuUensen's Estate, 2026 Muller, Estate of, 1317, 1342 Muller V. Baker, 128 V. Boggs, 1894, 1901, igoS V. Inderreiden, 14S0, 1481 V. Muller, 2321 V. Wadlington, 2105, 2107, 2136 Mulligan z'. Newton, 49 i>. Wallace, 1714 Mullikiii V. Mullikin, 2009 Mullins V. Clark, 1506 Mulloy 7). Kyle, 974 Mulry V. Norton, 2294 Mumby v. Bowden, 1193 Mumford v. Bowman, 291 V. Brown, 1054, 1083, 1182, 1191, 1201, i8qi V. Whitney, 49, 50, 55, 56, 2212, 2213 Mumma v. Miimma, 1640 Mummy v. Johnson, 2366 Munch z*. Cockeral, 1038 V. Shabel, 1652 Mundy v. Monroe, 1999 I'. Mundy, 1339 V. Sawter, 1806 V. Vawter, 2159 Munger z'. Perkins, 792, 793 Municipality No. i v. New Orleans, 9S2, loio, 1053 Municipality No. 2 "u. Orleans Cotton Press, 2293, 2294 Munnerbyn n. Munnerbyn, 666 Munro v. Allaire, 1768, 1769 V. Merchant, 2014 Munroe v. C-ates, 1982 V. Luke, 1915, igi6, 1967, 1983 %i. Merchant, 1657 V. Slickney, 2248 Munsell v. Carew, 1231, 1236 Munson v. Plummer, 1274, 1280 V. Wray, 1002, 1329 Munson's Admr. v. Plummer, 1286 Murchison v. Plyler, 1441 Murdoch's Case, 1766 Murdock v. Chapman, 2016 V. Clark, 2087 •V. Clarke, 2088 V. Ford, 2174, 2260 V. Gifford, 109, 112, 125, 133 V. Harris, 13S V. Hughes, 1622, 1781 V. Johnson, 336, 1709 V. Ratcliff, 823.974,975 V. Shackleford's Hfeirs, 416 Murly V. McDermott, 2236 Murphy v. Abrahms, 1965 V. Bamett, 1349 V. Calley, 2041, 2043, 20^,0 V. Crouch, 1481 V. Farwell, 2174 •u. Grice, 1577 V. Hendricks, 2024 V. Higginbottom, 889, 1773 V. Hubert, 1648, 1649 V. Marland, 129, 139, 140, 2022 V. Murchy, 958 V. Murphy, S98, 899 V. Nathans, 1647 V. Ottenheimer, 1031 V. Peabody, 1633, 1648 V. Purifoy, 2053 V. Service, 997 V. Thomas, 1020 V. Trigg, 2047 Murphy'? Heirs v. Jury, 1942 Murphy, Jackson ex d., v. Van Hoesen, 496, 499, 502 clxxvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Murray t. Armstrong, 1261, 1284 V. Ballou, 1622 V. Barlee, 2012 zi, Barney, 2030 V. Elackledge, 1744 z/. Catlett> 2101 ■7J. Cherrington, 1281 V Emmons, 987, 1034, 1368 V. Gilbert, 54 V. Glass, i6gi V. Glasse, 645 V. Hall, 1903 V, Harway, 1058, 1143, 1156 z'. Kelly, 215 V. Kelley, 219 V. Lilburn, 2109 V. Mount, 2268 V. Mountt, 1020 V. Riley, 1277, 2040 V. Selts, 1434 V. Shanklin, 986 V. Smith, 2068 V. Stairs, 2354 V. Walker, 2045, 2078 Murrell v. Lyon, 1003 V. Mandelbaum, 1956 V. Matthews, 401 Murry v. Wyse, 311 Murthwaite v. Jenkinson, 288, 299, 373, 1594, 1606, 1712 Musgrave v. Brooks, 265 Musham v. Musham, 1614, 1622 Mushawer v. Patten, 2295 Musick V. Barney, 2295, 2296, 2297 Musselman v. Eshleman, 1776 Musser v. Brink, 1239 71. Hershery, 69 Mussey v. Bulfinch Methodist Society, 37 V. Holt, 1026, 1030, II2Q ■V. Pierre, 673, 750 V. Sanborn, 1982 Mussina v. Bartlett, 2145 Mussouri Bank v. Raynor, 1824 Mustard v. Wohford's Heirs, 2344 Mustin, Doe d., v. Goldwin, 1152, 186S Mutton's Case, 1569 Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 1044 Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Deale, 632, 6S1, 682, 1364, 1636, 1639 V. Wagner, 631, 1641, 1700, 1703 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Balch, 2162 V. Boughrum, 2153 V. Dake, 2121, 2122 V. Shipman, 1808, 2173 V. Southard, 2167 Muzzey v. Davis, 2206 Muzzy V. Whitney, 1241, 1244 Myer v. Myer, 1408 V. Whitaker, 68, 73 Myers v. Buchanan, 2125 V. Bums, 1074, 1084, 1086 V. De Mier, 791 V. Entriken, 1719 7f. Estell, 2066 V. Evans, 1473, 1475 V. Forbes, 999 V. Ford, 1400, 1405, 1^59, 1502, 1519 zi. Gemmel, 2223 V. Hazzard, 2106 V. Hobbs, 2233 z'. Kantman, 2254 V. Mayfield, 2273 V. Myers, 308, 312, 1648, 1667, 1729, 176S V. Reed, 1920, 1937 V. Rice, 1988 V. Spooner, 2303 V. Stilljacks, 2262, 2268 V. White, 47, 1995. 2064 V. Wright, 2148 Myers' Guardian v. Myers' Admr., 1520 Myerson v. Neff, 1309, 1348 Myrick v. Bill, 1393, 1484 TS. Nab V. Nab, 1691 Nace ZI. Boyer, 1792 Nagle V. Ingersoll, 59 V. Macy, 2078, 2104 Naglee's Appeal, 1674 Nailer v. Stanley, 2155, 2180 Nairn zj. Prowse, 959 Naish V. Tatlock, 2266 Nallet V. Smith, 267 Nance z^. Alexander, 2261, 2270, 2271 V. Hill, 1432' V. Nance, 1431 Nancy 7/. Hill. 1425 Nanney v. Williams, i8or Nannock v. Horton, 319, 486 Nant-y-Glo & B. Ironworks Co. z;. Graves, 1761 Napier v. Bulwinkle, 2223, 2229, 2236 V. Darlington, 1077 Nash z/. Berkmeir, 996, 1264, 1322 V. Coates, 1583, 1795 V. Kelly, 2106 zf. Kemp, 2235 V. Minneapolis M. Co., 1202 V. Norment, 1399 Nason v. Allen, 841, 838 Nassamon v. Nassamon, 597 Nassbaum v. Northern Ins. Co., 2113, 2114 Nathan v. Stern, 997 National Bank of Metropolis v. Sprague, 786 National Co. v. Bush, 2271 National Fire Ins. Co.z/. McKay, 800 National, etc., Co. v. Donald, 2244 Navarre v. Rutton, 1783 Nave z/. Berry, 1067, 1098, 1105, 1106, 11 12, 1123, 1126, 1175. 1181, 1184 Nay lor f. Arnitt, 1037, 1038 V. Collinge, 142 V. Field, 669, 679 Nazareth Benevolent Institution v. Lowe, 2005 Nazarther Lit. & Ben. Inst. v. Lowe, 744, 77S, 804, 814, 832 V. Ware, 2033 Neal z>. Brockham, 1381, 1515 V. Coe, 13S6, 1441, 1442, 1443 V. Farmer, 706 V. Gregory, 2302 V. Robertson, 651, 1366 V, Speigle, 2004 Neale v. Hagthrop, 20S8 %i. Mackenzie, 1167 Neall V. Hill, 75 Nearz/. Watts, 485 Neary v. Bostwick, 1248 Neate v. Blarlborough, 20S3, 2170 Neave z'. Moss, 1149 Needham, /« re, 1786 Needham v. Allison, 80, 103, 106 V. Bronson, 1940 V. Hill, 1905 Neel V. Neel, 89. 494, 495, 497, 544, 552, 561, 562.811,812 Neeley v. Grantham, 75 Neely v. Butler, 597, 601, 603, 613 V. Haskins, 1S63 V. Jones, 2177 7*. Lancaster, 669 \ V. Rood, 1667 Negley v. Morgan, 2265 Negroes Chase v. Plummer, 1632 Negus, Matter of, 1102 Neide v. Neide, 308, 309 Neifert v. Ames, 2272 Neill V. Keese, 1639, 1641. 1644, 1654 Neilson v. Blight, 1600, 2105, 2107 V. Iowa Eastorn R. Co., g8 ». Lagow, 1594, 1596, 1709, 1711, i796_, 1797 Neiswanger z*. Squier, 1188 Nellis z). Coleman, 997 V. Lathrop, 1149, 12 12, 2269 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxvii Nellis 7*. Nellis, 471 Nellons 71. Truax, 2154 Nelson v. Bridgeport, 720 V. Clay, ig86, 19SS V. Davis, 300, 1606, 1796 V. Eaton, 1031 V. HoUey, 733, 735, 739, 8g6, 923 V. Liverpool Brewing Co., 1197, hq8, 1199 z'. Logow, 289 V. McLenaghan, 736 V. Pinegar, 1998, 2181, 2187 V. Worrall, 1676 Nelson's Heirs 7'. Clay, 552, 575 NeoU V. Garnett, 947 Neppach r'. Jordan, 1314 Ntpeau 7'. Doe, 134S Nerac's Estate, 624, 767 Nerhooth 7k Althouse, 1214 Nesbit 7'. Hanway, 2174 Xesbitt V. Tredenick, 1708 7/. Trindle, 675 V. Trunbo, 2327 Nettleton v. Silkes, 54, 55, 56, 2213 Neumaier v. Vincent, 1383, 1519 Neufviile v. Thompson, 64S Neumeister 7'. Palmer, 1317, 1330 Neumoyer z'. Andreas, 2189 Neves 7'. Scott, 1516, 1594, 1608, i6og, 1694 Nevil's Case, 433, 435 Ne\il z*. Saunders, 300, 1560, 1561, 1606, 1672, 1673 Nevins v. City of Peoria, 2232 Nevitt f. Bacon, 2093, 2094, 2146 Nevlin 7k Osborn, 2355 New V. NicoU, 1578 New Albany 7'. Burke. 1581 Newall V. Wright, 1120, 1220, 2063, 2077, 2112, 2144, 2147 Newark ?'. Branding, 983 Newark Savings Institution v. Forman, 1518 Newberry v. Brunswick, 591, 752 Newbold's Appeal, 1621 NewboM V. Newbold, 2077 7'. Smart, 1889, 1890 Newbrough v. Walker, 1245 New Brunswick Land Co. v. Kirk, 54 Newby v. Brownlee, 504 V. Perkins, 1983, 1985 7>. Vestal, 2261 Newcomb w. Bonham, 1996, 2050, 2158 7'. Clark, 2267 V. Dewey, 2146 V. Ramer, 49, 52, i'23i, 1239 V. Reimer, 49 Newcomer v. Orem, 720 Newell zf. Fisher, 1033 7/. Hayden, 1515 V, People, 2328 v. Sanford, 1285, 1260 7/. Woodruff, 1898, 1913, 1915 New England Jewelry Co. v. Merriam, 810, i4gt, 1497 New England Oyster Company v. McGawey, 1036 Xewhall v. Bart, 2039 V. Five Cent Savings Bank, 728, 814, 818, 828, 925 z>. Lynn F. C. Savings Bank, 2073, 2074, 20S3 V. Pierce, 2042 7>. Wheeler, 289, 290, 299, 1560, 1563. 1576. i.';94- 1607 New Hampshire Bank v. Willard, 2029 Newhart v. Peters, 2152 New Haven Savings Bank v. Parttan, 1997, 1998 New Ipswich Factory v. Batchelder, 2242 Newhoff 2/. Mayo, 1187 New Jersey Tns. Co. 7/. Meeker, 810 New Jersey R. Co. v. Van Syckle, 970 Newkerk v. Nev/kerk, 265, 305, 309. 3io 12 Newkirk, Jackson ex d., v. Embler, 533 Newland 7/. Holland, 1405 V. Newland, 351 Newlin v. Freeman, 1562 z'. Newlin, 1375 Newlove r/. Callaghan, 1946 Newman's Estate, 2282 Newman ?'. Anderton, 984, 1176, 2250 7t. Chapman, 2092, 2365 7J. Jenkins. 522, 767 V. Kershaw, 2057 V. Rutter, 1140, 1144 2/. Samuels, 2037 7'. Willetts. 741 New Orleans v. Guillotte, 1029 New Orleans Nat. Banking Assoc, c. Adams, 1992 New Orleans R. Co. ?'. Moye,22o6 7'. The Steamship Company, 1036 7'. United States. 2293 New Parisli of Exter v, Odwine, 2319 Newson 71. Hart, 1776 V. Pryor, 2357 New South Meeting House, He, 31, 35, 36 Newton v. Askew, 1791 V. Ayscough, 316 7'. Cook, 802, 803, 805 v. Griffith, 418, 469 V. Hariand, 1351, 1356 7/. Howe, 1246, 1911 V. Marshall, 2079 V. McKay, 2356 V. McLean, 1706, 2006 V. Newton, 2124 7/. Porter. 1622, 1760 V. Preston, 1649, 1700 7'. Reid, 249, 257, 270 7/. Sly, 761 7'. Taylor, 1620, 1621, 1760 7'. Wilson, 1176, 2056 New Vienna Bank z'. Johnson, 2055 New York Central R. Co. v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 2247, 2251 New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Randall, 1316 New York Dry Dock Co. 7/. Stillman, 1548 New York Elevated R. Co. 7/. Manhattan R. Co., lies New York & H. R. R. Co., Matter of, 197 V. Kip, 2327, 2328 New York &. M. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 2323 7>. Van Home, 2324 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Rector, etc., St. George's Church, 1157 New York L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Cutler,2i54 V. Milnor, 2153, 2154, 2242 7/. Smith, 2iog, 2110 V. White, 2i?f New York Mut. Life Ins. Co. 7/. Boughrum, 2178, 2180 New York State Bank 7/. Fletcher, 2136 Niagara Falls International Bridge Co. -c. Great Westeni R. Co. 11S4 Niblo 7'. N. A. Ins. Co., 1224 Nice's Appeal, 318, 328, 1656, 1675, 2119, 2126 Nichol V. Loy, 246, 253, 1515, 1746, 1748, 1749 V. N. V. & Erie R. Co., 1861 Nicholas t. Chamberlain, 2245 7'. Purcell, 1410, 1412 Nicholl 7'. Mumford, 1958 7'. Walworth, 1796 Nicholl, Doe d., v. McKaeg, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1275 Nicholls 7/. Butcher, 2, 308 V. Bvrne, 1213 71. O'Neill, 1364, 1366, 1367, ^369, 1370 7'. "Skiimer, 322 NichoUson 7/. Bettle, 450, 472 Nichols, Matter of, 1517 Nichols 7>. Allen, 1637, 1683, 1684 7/. Baxter, 2113, 2118 V. Bucknam, 1890 clxxviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Nichols V. Cabe, 2046 V. Denny, 1568, 1729, 1882, 1883, 1968 V. Duprey, 2268 V. Eaton, 253, 254, 274, 1748 V. Foster, 2162 V. Glover, 2007 V. Hull, 2207, 2242 V. Marshland, 199 V. Nichols, 1980, 1981 V. Overacker, 1497 V, Randall, 2151 V. Reynolds, 2046, 2048, 2092, 2101 V. Smith, 1911, 1924, 1925, 1967, 2082 •V. Williams, 1271, 1285, 1307, 1338 Nicholson v. Halsey, 1580, 2095 V. Lauderdale, 1615 V. Leavitt, 720, 2057, 2288 V. Munigle, 1171, 1172 V. Smith. 1009 Nicholson's Lessee v. Hemsley, 903 Nickals v. Weim, 2309 Nickels v. Otto, 2174 NicoU, Matter of, 1023 V. Mumford, 1712, 1794 V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 259, 266, 269, 272, 839, 1849, 1851, 1S52, 1854, 1855, 1864, 1866, 1S67 u. Ogdeo, 787, 824, 875, 881, 930, 1608, 1702, 1717, 1736 V. Scott, 75 V. Walworth, 1577, 1743 Nicolls V. Rogers, 2056 Nicolson V. Wordsworth, 1788 Nirrosi v. Phillipi, 617, 1212 Nickell -v. Haiidly, 247, 274, 300, 1606 Nickerson v. Bowley, 1084 Niedeletz'. Wales, 1126, 1175 Nightingale v. Burrell, 323, 396, 402, 411, 413, 415. 418, 424, 447, 465 V, Hidden, 297, 679, 680, 684, 1610, 1614 7). Lawson, 519 Niles V. Gray, 306, 308, 309, 321 •V. Hamon, 2153, 2180 V. Nye, 802 V. Ransford, 1670, 1755 Nitzell V. Paschall, 2246 Niven v. Belknap, 2174, 2302 Nixon's Appeal, 1646 Nixon V. Bynum, 2000, 2077, 2078 V. Nanney, 139S V. Nixon, 1836 V. Potts, 1925 V. Rose, 251, 257 V. Widliams, 601, 6ro Noble V. Bosworth, 103, 104, 130, 136, 146 V. Meyers, 1985 V. McFarland, 588, 1361, 1377, 1903, 1994 V. Hook, 1448 V. Mermott, 1788 V. Noble, 661 V. Sylvester, 81 V. Willock, 1836 Nobles V. McCarty, 1281 Noe V. Miller's Executors, 479 Noel V. Bowley, 1743 V. Ewing, 671, 705, 708, 714, 715, 725, 893 V. Henry, 1884 V. Jevon, 832 V. McCrory, 1131, 1132, 1322 Noke's Case, 2362 Nokes V. Smith, 462 Nolan V. Reed, 1388, 1390 Noland v. Nelligan, 1630 Nolen V. Roysten. 1212 Nookes' Case, 1989 Noonan v. Brdley, Admr. of Lee, 2165 V. Orton, 983, 1075, 1089 Norbury v. Norbury, 1721 Norcross v. Norcross, 1998 Nordant v. Thorold, 876 Normau v. Burnett, 1592 Norman v. Cunningham, 1937 V. Wells, 1059, 1076, 1077, 1124, 1138 Norment v. Hull, 1244 Norrice v. Baker, 56 Norris v. Beyea, 344, 533, 671 V. Hensley, 249 V. Hoyt, 215 V. Johnston, 254 V. Johnstone, 174S V. Kidd, 1378 V. Le Neve, 1708 V. Milner, 1849, 1861 V. Moody, 1863 V. Morrill, 1344 V. Morrison, 510 V. Moulton, 1412, 1501, 207s V. Sullivan, 1903, 1904 V. Taylor, 1772 V. Thompson, 1844 V. Watson, 49 V. Wilkinson, 2002 North V. Barnum, 1145, 1150, 1782 V. Philbrook, 289, 1596 V. Valk, 596 North American Coal Co. v. Dyett, 1373, 1374 North Baltimore Building Association v. Cald- well, 1770 Northam v. Hurley, 2218, 2220, 2228, 2229 Northampton Bank w. allet, 2110, 2111 Northampton Paper Mills v. Ames, 2077 Northbey v. Strange, 618 North Carolina R. Co. v. Wilson, 1662 Northcut XI. Whipp, 691, 761, 780, 815, 820, 826, 883, 884,885 Northern v. State, 49, 57 Northern Bank of Kentucky u. Roosa, 975, 1225 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Canton Co. of Balu- inore, 145 Northern Trans. Co. of Ohio v. Chicago, 2238 Northey v. Burbage, 325 Northfield ti. Plymouth, 597 V. Veshire, 597, 752 North Hudson R. Co. v. Booraem, 61 Northrup v. Marguam, 1897, 189S, 1S99, 1979 7'. Foot, 2256 Northumberland v. Aylesford, 946 Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 1554 Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. a. Allis, 2012 Northy v. Northy, 2099, 2105 Norton v. Babcock, 1093, 1094, 1095 V. Fagon, 774, 894 V. Fraecker, 1552 V. Gale, 995 V. Doe ex d. Sanders, 1223 V. Highleyman, 2138 V. Hixon, 1703 V. Ladd, 335, 1781 V. Leonard, 299, 1560, 1594, 1607, i88g V. Lewis, 2151, 2155, 2180 V. Norton, 1553, 1595, 1597, 1797 V. Pettibone, 2332 V. Phelps (" Hewitt v. Phelps "), 1749 V. Snyder, 1087 V. Turville, 1783 7/. Webb, 2079 Norton, Jackson ex. d., v. Sheldon, 1156 Norvell v. Walker, 2363 Norway v. Norway, 1788 V. Rowe, 574 Norwich v. Hubbard, 1995, 1996, 2084 Norwich F. Ins. Co. v. Broomer, 2118 Norwood V. Byrd, 1702 V. Marrow, 714, 716, 739, 740, 759, 86i, 870, 892, 1349 Nottes' Appeal, 2006 Nottingham v. Jennings, 322, 324, 826, 925 Nourse -u. Henshaw, 2012 Noves V. Clark, 2050 Nowell V. Johnson, 2007 V. Wentworth, 1154, 1293 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES, clxxix Nowlan r-. Trevor, 1274, 1337 Nowlin V. Whipple, 2243 V. Winfre, 416, 447 Noyesr-. Blakeman, 1578, 1798 V. Hemphill, 2248 %>. Marsh, 1052 V. Rich, 2064, 2066 V. Stauff, gg6 V. Sturdivant, 2093, 2094, 2095 T'. Terrj', 105, 113 V. Ward, 2302 Nugent V. Cloon, 1754 V. Gifford, 1667 V. Riley, 2037, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 21OS Nunemacher v. Ingle, 2157 Nunn V. Givhan, 13.63, 1368, 1369 ■V. Wilsmove, 1626 Nusom V. Clarkson, 2086 Nussbaum ik Evans, 419 Nutt V. Hamilton Ins. Co., 1051 Nultal i>. Bracewell, 2227 N. W. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 1920 Nyce's Estate, 1713 Nyce V. Obertz, 730 Nycom v. McAllister, 2307 Nye's Appeal, 8S7, 891 Nye V. Taunton Branch R. R. Co., 796, 828, 922 Oakes t'. Mfg. Ins. Co., 2116 7'. Munroe, 1026, 1141 Onkey z'. Bennett, 367, 2057, 2288 Oakley 7'. Aspinwall, 1242 1'. Scoonmaker, 1230 7'. Stanley, 2215 Oakman v. Dorchester Mut. F. Ins. Co., 139, 141 Oaks V. Oaks, 1460 Gates 7'. Cooke, 290, 1563, 1594 Gates d. Markham v. Cooke, 288, 1594 Oatmaii V. Fowler, 2356 0*Bannon7'. Paremour, 2300 x<. Roberts, 2251,2257, 225S Oberley v. Lerch, 94 Obert V. Obert, 1906, 1975 O'Brien v. Capwell, 1054, 1066 V. Elliot, 708, 714, 880, 886, 891, SgS, 899, gi8, 920, 924, 929, 940, 944, 952 f. Troxel, i3r5, 1316 V. Wetherell, 259, 266, 26S O'Byrne v. Feeley, 535 Ocean Beach Association v. Brinkley, 70S, 719, 761, 763, 788, 831 Ocean National Bk. v. Olcott, 180S Ockington v. Richey, 55 O'Connel v. McGrath, 1141 O'Connell v. Kelly, 2090 O'Connor v. City of Memphis, 1802 I'. Kelly, 1154 7/. O'Connor, 2269 O'Daniel zk Bakers' Union, 2297 Odell V. Buck, 1034 7'. Durant, 1004 V. Montross, 2038 V. Odell, 1685 Odenbaugh v. Bradford, 2050 Odioma v. I^yford, 57 Odiome v. Lyford, 1905. 1969 ] Odom V. Beverly, 690 V. Weathersbee, 1899 O'Doherty v. McGloin, 1407 O'Donnell v. Hitchcock, 126 V. McMurdie, 1286 Oelrichs v. Williams (Oelrichs v. Spain), 1668 0*Farrall v. Simplot, 646, 669, 711, 721, 895, 1938 Gfferman -v. Star, looi, 1002 Officer 7'. Young, 2332 Offut V. Scott, 1961 O'Flaherty v. Sutton, 841, 875 Ofpeer v. Burchell, 2166 O'Gara v. Eiscnlohr, 751, 757 Ogborn v. Eliason, 2027 Ogbounie v. Ogburne, 737 Ogdeu's Appeal, 299, 414, 1606, 1656, 1673 Ogden V. Giidden, 2155 V. Grant, 2038, 2040 V. Groves, 2207, 2238 7'. Larrabee, 1690 ■V. Robertson, 498 'D. Saunders, 1512, 1518 V. Stock, 63 V. Walker, 1309 V. Walters, 2121, 2156 Ogdensbiirg& L. C. R. Co. v. Vt. & C. R,, Co., 1020 Ogilvie V. Faljambe, 999 V. Hull, ri68 Ogle's Lessee 7-. Ogle, 455 Oglesby v. HoUister, 1889, i8go Oglesby Coal Co. v. Pasco, 924 O Grady v. Bamshel, 2336 O'Hanlin v. Den. ex d. Van Kleek, 236 O'Hanlon v. Unthank, Jr., 266,267 O'Haraz/. O'Neill, i6gi O'Hearz/, De Goesbriand, 30, 31, 32 Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Ledyard, 2126 V, Winn, 2178 Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Readers, 2141 Ohling V. Luitiens, 2146, 2151 O'Keefe v. Caltliorpe, 1662 7). Kennedy, 1/43, 1156 Okeson v. Patterson, 2293 Okey -v. Bennett, 720 Oland's Case, 4g8, 53g, 1206, 1267 Gland v. Burdwick, 1206, 1207 V. Hardwicke, 539 Olcott V. Bynum, 1635, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1683 •v. Robinson, 2158 V. Tioga R. Co., 1554, 1769, 1775 7'. Wing, i960, 196 1 Oldfield's Case, 2222 Oldham z'. Halley, 2043, 2054 7'. Henderson, 592, 624, 661, 1377 V. Oldham, 501 7'. Pickering, 528 zK Sale, 821, 905 7'. Woods, 1276 Oldroyd v. Crampton, 983 Olds 7'. Cummings, 2106 Olti South Society v. Crocker, 16S6 Olendorf v. Cook, 976 Oleson V. Bullard, 1409, 1523 O'Linda v. Lathrop, 72 Oliver v. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co., 1000 7'. Court, 1608, 1735 7'. Decatur, 2067 7'. Dougherty, 1635, 1646 V. Hook, 2212, 2213, 2215, 2241 V. Houdlet, 103 1 V. Montgomery, 1890 7'. Oliver, 1830 7'. Piatt, 1623, 1661, 1760, 1761, 1765, lyf'S, 1782 V. Pitman, 2207, 2221 V, Snowden, 1387, 13S8, 143S, 1442, 1446 V. Stone, 2353 Olliffe V. Wells, 1637 Olmstead %>. Blair, 92S V. Elder, 2103 V. Niles, 53, 54, 55 V. Olmstead, 340, 342 Olney v. Howe, 1593 Olson 7'. Nelson, 2056 Olt V. Lohmas, ggS V. Lohnas, 996, 1013, 1323 Omaha Hotel Co. v. Kouutze, 2066 Ombony 7'. Jones, 1224 O'Mulcahy V. Holley, 2111 Onderdonk v. Ackerman, 1842 V. Gray, 20S4, 2087 clxxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. O'Neal V, Commonwealth, 597 O'Neale v. Lodge, i6g8 V. Ward, 271 0*NeU V. Harkins, 2233 V. Seixas, 2106 O'Neill V. Capelle, 2045, 2048, 2052, 2054 V. Henderson, 1722 Ongley v. Chambers, 2216 Onslow 1). , 79, 1 185 V. Corrie, 2265 Onsou V. Cown, 1643 Ontario Bank v. Hennessey, 1241 V. Loot, 1579 Ontario State Bank v. Gerry, 1477 Opdyke %>. Bartles, 783 V. Barttes, 2173 Opinions of Justices, 893 Oppenheimer f . Fritter, 1393 Orchard v. Hughes, 2165 Ord V. Chester, 1026 •V. Johnston, 1697 V. McGee, 2104, 2106 Ordway v. Remington, 2256 Oregon Iron Co. v. TruUinger, 2223 Oregon R. Co. v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 1020 Oregon R. & N. Co. z/. Mosier, 129 Orford v. Benton, 692, 693, 703 Orgill V. Kinshead, 2263 Oriental Bank v. Freeze, 671, 1517 V. Haskins, 959 O'Riley v. McChesney, 2225 Orlando's Case, 48 Orleans v Chatham, 1590, 1592, 1691, 1736 Orleans Nav. Co 7/.Llard, 1140 Orman v. Day, 2234, 2235 V. Orman, 1456, 1457 Orme's Case, 1556 Ormiston v. Olcott, 1731 Ormond v. Hutchinson, 1783 Onidoff V. Turman, 402, 447, 453, 467, 473 O'Rorke v. Smith, 2207, 2221 Orr, Matter of, 1521 Orr z/. Hadley, 68g, 2062, 2063 V. Hodgson, 216, 218, 673, 1657, 2014 V. Hodson, 2347 V. Hollidays, 599, 6or V. O'Brien, 487 V. Quimby, 2326, 2327 V. Shaft, 1390, 1391, 1421, 1434, 1446 Orrick z/. Boehen, 710 Orser -u. Hoag, 217 Orth V. Orth, 897 Orton V. Knab, 2168 V, Noonan, 1089 Orvis V. Newell, 2140 Osborn w Garden, 1022 V. Carr, 2139 V. Hart, 232S 7/. Osborn, 1537, 1894 V. Rider, 2355 V. Schenck, 1922 V. Wise, 983 Osborne v. Brennon, 1244 V. Crump, 2150, 2152 V. Edwards, 1363 V. Endicot, 778, 1635, 163S, 1651, 1699 V. Farewell, 2254 V. Hart, 2328 V. Home, 866 z/. Humphry, 974 V. Morgan, 1194 V. Shrieve, 416 V. Tunis, 1998, 2013, 2129, 2157 Osgood V, Abbott, 1861, 1S62 V. Davis, 1701 •V. Dewey, 1218 V. Franklin, 1730, 1737, 1758, 1841, 1842, 1843 V. Howard, 63 V. Thompson, 2046 V. Thompson Bank, 2047 Osman v. Sheage, 1558 Osmond v. Fitzron, 1034 V. Fitzroy, 756 Osterhout v. Shoemaker, 764 Osterman v. Baldwin, 1590, 2014 Ostrander, Jackson ex d., v. Rowan, 1283, 1298 V. Spickard, 916, 934, 935, 955 Ostrom V. McCann, 2149, 2152 Oswald V. F"atenburgh, 2264 V, Kopp, 307 Otis 7'. Beckwith, 1594 V. McLellan, 1682 V. McMillan, 225S V. Moulton. 212, 2298 V. Parshley, 761, 764, 815, 826 V. Prince, 270 V. Sill, 2018 V. Smith, 66 V Warren, 870 Otis Co. V Inhabitants of Ware, 1554 Otiey 7'. McAlpine's Heirs, 641, 1981 Otley, Doe d., v. Manning, 1626 O'Tool V. Brown, 202 Ott V Specht, 143 V. Sprague, 147 1 Ottauquechee Sav. Bk. %>. Holt, 2101 Ottawa Plank Road Co. v. Murray, 2051 Ottman v. Moak, 2011, 2177, 2178 Otto V. Jackson, 1131, 2267 Ottumwa Lodge 7/. Lewis, 64, 65, 507 Ottumwa Woollen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 103, IDS, 123, 132, 133, 2080 Ould V. Washington Hospital, 1609 Ouseley v. Anstruther, 1623 Outcalt V Ludlow, 2299 Outerbridge v. Phelps, 2241 Outland v. Bowen, 396 Outon %>. Weeks, 1807 Outtuon V. Dulin, 1213 Overdeer z/. Lewis, 1253, 1310, 1357 Overfield v. Christie, 2295 Overholt's Appeal, 786, 1964 Overman v. Sanborn, 2263 V. Sims, 467 Overseer of Poor v. Sears, 224 Overstreet v. Bates, 1781 Overton v. Hollinshade, 2023, 2024 V. Lacy, 1878, 1880, 1968 V. Williston, 115 Overturf v. Dugan, 355 Oves V. Oglesby, 137, 138 Oviatt V. Brown, 1773 V. Sage, 1246, 1247 Owen V. Bertholomew, 2300 V. Boyle, 2273 V. Ellis, 1806 V. Fields, 2021 V. Hyde, 547, 555, 558, 566, 743, 806 V. Morton, 1897, 19^4 V. Norris, 2346 V. Nye Company, 1035 V. Peacock, 866, 930,931 V. Perry, 2340 V. Robbins, 781, 782 7'. Slatter, 889, 890, 924 V. Thomas, 999 V. Wright, 1081 ZK Yale, 897 ( Owens V. Collins, 1956 V. Dickinson, 1835 V. Dunn, 651 V. Lewis, 55, 56 V. Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1603, 1604, 1659 7'. Owens, 1594 Owing's Case, 1701 Owston V. Ogle, 1903 Oxford V. Ford, 1292, 2274 V. Oxford, i6go Oxley, Bx parte, 1677 Oxley V. James, 1300, 1301, 1306, 1333 V. Lane, 249 Oyster t-, Oyster, 534 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxi Pace 7'. Pace, 246, 253 Pacific Iron Works v. Newhall, 2025 Pacific Rolling Mill Co. v. Dayton, S & G. R. R. Co., I020 Pack V. Bathurst, 1825 V. Mayor, 1 194 V. Thomas, i6gS, 1701 Packard v. Putnam, 1589, 1592, 1691 Packer z/. Rochester & y. K. Co., 2142,2146, 2156, 2157 Packington's Case, 544, 559 Packington z'. Packington, 569 Padding v. Clark. 918, 944 Paddison v. Oldhan, 412 Paddon v. Richardson, 1715 Padelford v. Padelford, 545, 546, 547, 550 556, 559. 738 Padgett 7'. Lawrence, 1642, 1645, 1651 Paffz*. Kenny, 17S1 Page*s Estate, 684 Page ZK Crown, 1793 V. Cooper, 1832, 201 1 V. Estey, 974, 1008 V. Ewbanks, 1443 V. Foster, 2053 V. Fowlen, 47 V. Hayward, 460 V. Hinssman, 983, 1218 ZK Lashley, 2250 z}. Page, 835, 868, 869, 1635 V. Palmer, 261, 1867 V. Pierce, 2107 V. Purr, 1 1 74 V. Robinson, 2067, 2077, 2186, 21S7 V. Rogers, 2042 V. Roper, 1815 zi. Summers, 1689 zj. Way, 247 z). Webster, 1882, 1979 z). Western Ins. Co., 1668 V. Wight, 1355 Pahlman zi. Smith, 1842 Paice V. Archbishop of Canterbury, 317 Paige z>. Paige, 824 Pain 7'. Smith, 2002 Paine's Case, 620, 621, 623, 624, 675, 676, 677, 681, 691, 788, 885 Paine v, Aberdeen Hotel Co., 2272 V. Benton, 2027 z. City of Boston, 2223 V. Coffin, 1 158 V. French, 2105, 2107 7/. Hutchens, 2290 z'. Jones, 2330 V. Slocum, 1890, igo6 V. Upton, 2330 V. Tucker, 1041 V. Wagner, 1939 V. Wood, 68, 70, 71, 72 Pairo V. Vickery, 1736 Paisley's Appeal, 1593 Palk V. Clinton, 1749, 2149, 2150, 2172 V. Lord Clinton, 2076 Pall 7'. Baulkley, 1040 Pallman v Mortgester, 1143 Pally V. Saratoga R. Co., 2325 Palmater 7/. Carey, 2166 Palmer, Ex Parte, 514 Palmer z*. AllJcock, 19 V. Danney, 840 V. Edwards, 1073,1109, 1112, 1118 ZI. Fleshies, 2234 ■V. Forbes, 98, 103 zj. Ford, 1139,1140,1x58 V. Gumsey, 2168 V. Guthrie, 2046 V. Hawes, 1385, 1391, 1440 V. Horton, 883 V. Marguette Co., 1000 V. Mead, 2157 Palmer v. Miller, 2011 V. Mulligan, loi, 2255 V. Oakley, 1622 V. Sawyer, 1030, 1073 z>. Simonds, 1629 V. Steiner, 2252 ZK Stevens, 2085 V. Wetmore, 1127, 1167, 2223 z>. Young, logo Panton z'. Holland, ig8, 2231, 2232 V. Manley, 1475, 1479, ispf' Papillon V. Voice, 444, 491 Paquetel v. Gauche, 1213 Papasy zk Papasy, 780 Paradine v. Jane, 1099 Pardee v. Lindley, 1407, 1408, 1414, 1437, '44^* 1476, 1506, 1522, 1670, 2106 7'. Treat, 2072 V. Van Anken, 2136, 2137, 2170, 2172 Pardue v. Giveus, 265 Parent z'. Callerhand, 1035 Parfitt 7/. Hember, 1693 Parham zi. Parham, 957, 960, 963 7'. Thompson, 49, 52 Paris 7'. Hulett, 2157 Parish zk Gates, 2047 V. Gilmanton, 1998 V. Gaspare, 2242, 2243 7/. Scott, 2331 z). Ward, 221, 2289 V. Wheeler, 2014 Park V. Baker, 110 V. Brooks, 729 V. Castle, 1 135, 1300, 1338 V. Hardy, 685 ' V. Hawkins, 2357 Parke v. Kilham, igoi, 1908 7'. Mears, 2355 Parker 7'. Allen, 1220 7'. Banks, 2298 V. Boston & M- R. Co., 2230 7'. Carter, 621 V. Chambliss, 57S V. Constable, 1269, 1337 z). Converse, 1662, 1754 7'. Copeland, 1104 V. Foote, 1913, 2223, 2292 V. Foy, 2006 V. Girard, 1973 V. Griswold, 2248 V. Hayden, 936 z/. Hill, 2034 V. HoUis, 996, 998, 1013, 1131, 1316, 1323 z). Hotchkiss, 2226 V. Jacobs, 2017 V. Jones, 2080 V. King, 1388, 1513 z*. Lincoln, 1873, 2014, 2015 V. Murphy, 861, 869 V. Nanson, 1213 V. Nichols, 236, 2317, 2319 V. O'Cear, 930 V. Parker, 309, 335, 340, 342, 415, 417, 723, 724, 790, 846, 877, 1838 z/. Parmele, 2059 7'. Proprietors of Locks and Canals, 212, 1815, 1816, 1898, 1899 V. Raymond, 1213 V. Rochester, 2000 7/. Rule, 2334 V. Smith, gg, 2362 V. Snyder, 1635, 1648 V. .Staniland, 50, 51 V. Sluckert, 214 ZK Tootal, 411, 413 V. Van Cortland, 1591 V. Webb, 2262 V. White, 1845 V. Whyte, 1185 V. Winnipiseogee, Lake C. &. W, Mfg. Co., X669 -i/. Wood, 2020 clxxxii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Parkham v. Justices of Decatur Co., 2324 Parkhurst v. Walertown Steam Engine Co. 2106 V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 2019 V. Van Cortland, 2174 V, Watertown Steam Engine Co., 2106 Parkins z*. Coxey, 552, 553 V. Dunham, 2223, 2345, 2347 Parkinson's Appeal, 75, 76,2121 Parkinson v. Hanbury, 2086 Parkist z/. Alexander, 1617, 1643, 1745, 1771 2015, 2036 Parkman v. Bowdoin, 417, 423 1;. Welch, 2153, 2184 Pavkman's Admr. v. Aicardi, 1112, 1123, 1184 Parke v. Nichols, 2312 Parks, Re, 1433 Parks z/. Boston, 1127, 1129, 1167,2268 V. Brooks, 729, 799 V, Hall, 1993, 2037, 2049, 2127, 2128 V. Hardy, 823, 843, 865 V. McLellan, 718 V. Nichols, 2319 V. Parks, 1607 V. Webb, 2020 z/. Whit, 1035, 1373 Parmelee v. Cameron, 1697 V. Dann, 2105, 2106, 2107 Parmenter z/. Walker, 2163 V. Weber, 1057, 1109, 1112, ii2i Parmer z/. Giles, 1750 v, Parmer, 2168 Parmle v. Sloan, 1641 Parrett z*. Shaubhut, 2122, 2126 Parrisz/. Cobb, 1032, 1782 Parrish v. Stevens. 2206 Parrot v. Barnes, 1301, 1306 V. Barney, 1105, 1152, 1153, 1228 If. Edmondson, 1842 Parris v. Cobb, 1032, 17S2 Parry v. Harbert, 255 V. House, 1 148 V. Wright, 2098 Parry, Doe d., v. Hazell, 1336, 1337, 1340, 1341 Parrott v. Kumpf, 1497 Papsell V, Stryker, 1004 Parsons, In re, 234 Parsons z/. Baker, 1630 V. Bedford, 667 V. Boyd, 1729, 1730, 1876, 1881, 1885, 1968 V. Camp, 78, 79, 103, 106 V. Copeland, 133, 134, 138 V. Ely, 645 V. Hughes, 2187 V. Johnson, 2211,2216 2/. Livingston, 1400, 1402, 1519, 1520 V. Lyman, 1835 7/. McCracken, 2176 V. Miller, 1972 V. Noggle, 2174, 2175 V. Russell, 2324 V. Smith, 55 V. Wells, 1996, 2102, 2103, 2107 V. Winslow, 270, 271, 514 artee v. Stewart, 1399, 1402, 1434, 1451 z/. Thomas, 1662 Partington's Case, 400, 444 Parteriche v. Powlet, 563, 740 Parton v. Harvey, 752 Partriche v. Broadhurst, 947 Partridge v. Badger, 2342 V. Berce, 2092, 2093 V. Bere, 1279 V. Dorsey, 401, 445, 463 V. First Independent Church, 41, 2213 p. Gilbert, 2232, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2243 V. Havens, 1640 z'. Messer, 1623 z'. Partridge, 2105 f. Scott, 2232 V. Swazey, 2027 Paschal v. Cushman, 1513 z/. Davis, 1723 Pasey v. Cook. 300 Passinger v. Thorburn, 1247 Patapsco Guard Co. v. Morrison, 1832 Patch V, City of Covington, 1247, 1248 V. Keeler, S52, 859 Patchin v. Cromach, 2344 Patersonz'. Boston, 1129 V. Ellis, 322, 344, 396 •u. Lanning, 1989 •V. Murphy, i6gi, 1791 V. Wabash, St. L. & Pac. R. Co., 198 Paton V. Murray, 2147 Patrick V. Commissioners, 2325 V. Marshall, 1986 V Morehead, 534 z/. Sherwood, 504, 505, 553 Patridge v, Bere, 1993 Patten %>. Bond, 1164 V. Dechon, 1059, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1077, 1112, 1115, 1117, 1124, 1139, 2251, 2262, 2265 V. Pearson, 2157, 2163 V. Smith, 1514 Patterson v. Birdsdall, 2138 V. Blake, 1960, 1964 V. Blight, 2254 V. Boston, 1 127, 1 167, 2268 7/. Carneal, 799, 2076 V. Campbell, 1624 V. Douner, 2059 V. Gaines, 755 V. Hansel, 1145, 1723 V. Huddart, 307 V. Johnston, 2029 V. Kreig, 1475 V. Lanison, 2095 V. Lawrence, 1820, 1823 V. Martin, 1976 V. McCousland, 228 V. Moore, 281, 287, 531 V. Patterson, 646, 647, 895, 1938 V. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., S3 V. Rabb, 2110 z/. Robinson, 1562 V. Snell, 2322 V. Stoddard, 1258, 1282, 1290, 1291, 2261, 2271 •v. Sweet, 1216 V. Wilson, 1822 V. Yeaton, 2055 Pattison's Appeal, 355, 2334 Pattison v. Blanchard, 1241 V. Hill, 2099, 2107 V. Powers, 2082 Patton V. Adkins, 2086 V. Axley, 1254, 1299, 1315, 1319, ,324, 1337 V. Beecher, 1589, 1590 V. Calhoun, 18S9 V. Cliamberlain, 1592 V. Crow, iSjo •V. Page, 2181 V. Patton, 786 •V. Philadelphia, 595, 596 V. Philadelphia & New Orleans, 7<;i, i^'z V. Randall, 2 - /:> > /s V. Rankin, 1942, 1944 Patty z/. Bogle, 2274 V. Goolsoy, 1S24 V. Middleton, 1950 V. Pease, 2154, 2180 Paul V. Paul, 1411, i4qi ■V. Compton, 1629 V. Davis, 2282 V. Fulton, 1665, 1690, T759 y. Ward, 1349 Paullings v. Barron, 1997, 1998, 2169 Paup V. Sylvester, 1408 Pawlet V. Clark, 707 Pawlins v. Stewart, 2090 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxiii Pawson v. Brown, 1638 Paxson ?'. Lefferts, 423 7'. Potts, 938 Paxtou V. Douglass, 2081 V. Harrier, 2134, 2184 z'. Paul, 2129 V. Potts, 937 v. Stuart, 1689 Payn v. Beal, 251 Pa.yne, £ jv parUy 34, 1631, 1632 Payne v. Atterburj', 2004, 2008 V. Avery, 2004 V. Beecker, 733, 734, 735, 741,838, 839 v. BuUard, 1781 v. Dotson, 892 • V. Harrell. 2009 V. Herald, 215S V. James, 1202 V. Patterson, 2011, 2017 f. Payne, 654, 678, 679, 684, 688, 712, gi8, 945. 1372 V. Rogers, 1196, 1108, 1202 V. Sale, 1796 7>. Wilson, 2364 Payton ?'. Sherburne, 1293 Pea V. Pea, 106, 116, 132, 135 Peabody v. Eastern Methodist in Lynn, 1886 V. Hewett, 2299 V. Lynn Methodis Soc, 2107 V. Minot, 1911, 1912, 1922, 1967, 1985 z'. Patten, 2172 V. Roberts, 2174 7'. Tarbel!, 1538, 1576, 1633 Peacock 7-. Eastland, 383 z/. Monk, 2012 f. Purvis, 49 V, Smart, 2279 Peacock. Doe d., z;. Raffan, 1338, 1339, i34'» U42 Peak V. EUicott, 1762 Peake ». Cameron, 1446 Pearce v. Ferris, 1350 V. Foreman, 2006 V. Hall, 2026 v. McClenaghani, 1797, 2201, 2243, az45i 2247, 2248 7'. Morris, 2170 V. Savage, 335, 1594, i597 Pearl v. Harris, 1051 V. McDowell, 2345 Pears z'. Covilland, 617 Pearse v. Baron, 1038 7/. Ownes, 274 Pearson 7/. Carlton, 1895 V. East, 1620 V. Howes, 596, 751 V. Jamison, 1667 7', Moreland, 1716 V. Ries, ggi, looi V. Seay, 2044, 2051, 2053, 2054 z>. Spencer, 2211, 2216 z'. Taylor, 1766 Pearson, Jackson ex d., v. Housel, ^, 305- 307 309. 310 Pease v. Benson, 2108 7'. Kelly, 2005 V. Pilot Knob Iron Co., 1999, 207S ■V. Warren, 2100 Peaslee v. Gee, 2357 Peavey v. Tilton, 1786 Peay v. Peay, 885 Peck 7'. Austin, 1029 V. Batchelder, 96, 104, 107, loS, 113, i35» 136. ^7 7f. Brummagen, 1947, i949 -v. Carpenter, 1895, 191 1 V. Fisher, 1030, 1957, 1963 V. Henderson, 181 1 V. IngersoU, 1107, 1124 V. Jones, 1127, 1167 V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 2259 f. Millans, 2024, 2122, 2365 Peck V. Newton, 1713 V. Northrop, 1120, 2250 V. Peck, 572, 595, 597, V. Sherwood, 505, 513 V. Vandenberg, 1700, 1947 Peckham v. Haddock, 2134 V. Hadwen, 762, 817, 819 Pederick v. Searle, 2299 Pedrick t. Searl, 517 * V. Searle, 2297, 2300 Peebles 7/. Reading, 1644, ^744 Peed V. McGee, 2059 Peel V, Lewis, 2227 Peeler v. Guilkey, 1897, 1915 Pep;ues v. Pegues, 1635, 1646 Peirce v. Goddard, 62, 97, 142, 144 PeirsoU 7/. Elliot, 2331 Peiton V. Banks, 310 Pelan v, Bevard, 975, 1424 Pelham's Case, 516 Pell V. Decker, 1489 Pellenz z'. Bullerdieck, 128 Pelletreau v. Jackson, 1580 Pelley v. Wathen, 20S9, 2090 Pells V. Brown, 320, 321, 418 Peiton V. Knapp, 2134 V. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 1614, 2113 Pemberton v. Hicks, 580, 628, 665, 666, 2278 V. King, 1225 V, Pemberton, 935, 941 Pemberton's Lessee v. Hicks, 666 Pemington v. Hanby, 2ot;'^ Pence v. St. Paul, H. & M. R. Co., 1019 Pender?'. Lancaster, 1397 V, Rhea, 1236 Pendleton v. Hooper, 1381 V. Pomroy, 766 V. Rooth, 2095 zf, Vandevier, 516, 743 Pendleton County 7>. Amy, 1041 Pendergast z*. Yomig, 1120 V. Foley, 1785 Peneyert/. Brown, 1138 Penfold 7/. Mould, 1587 PenhoUow V. Dwight, 49, 51 Penington v. Coats, 520 Penman v. Slocum, 1611 Penn z/. Clemans, 2169 V. demons, 1758 V. Klyne, 2305 V. Ott, 2016 V. Peacock, 1844 Penn Salt Mfg. Co. z>. Ned, 1561 Pennall's Appeal, 95 Pennel 7'. Fern, 102 1 Pennell 7>. Deffell, 1720 Pennhollow v. Dwight, 2334 Penniali v. Harbome, 1152 Penniman v. French, 96 Pennington v. Gellard, 2233 7'. Hanby, 2168 7/. Seal, 14, 31. i5'2, 1513. 15^7 Pennington 7/. Veil, 538, 731, 733, 741 Pennington, Doe d., z'. Taniere, 1320, 1331, 1332 Pennock 7t. Coe, 98, 2018, 2019 V. Eagles, 2127 Pennock, 487, 1S06, 1836 Pennock's Estate, 118, 346, 458, 1591. 1593. 1631, 1632, 1633 Pennoyer v. Neff, 2142, 2324 Pennsylvania z'. Wheeling Bridge Co., 2326 Pennsylvania Coal Co. z/. Blake, 2129 V. Sanderson, 200 V. Sandersons, 199 Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v. Parke, 1972 Pennsylvania Lead Co.'s Appeal, igg, 2222 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jones, 2241 V. Parke, 1972 Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Neel, 88 Penny v. Black, 1241 V. Davis, 1786 Lennytiecker z/. McDougal, 113 clxxxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Penrose v. Erie Canal Co., 151S Pense %k Hixon, 891, 927 Penthyn v. Huges, 509, 519 Pentland -u. Stokes, 1785 Penton v. Robert, 107, 119, 123, 129, 130, 131, 145, 146 People V. Bank of Dansville, 1762 v> Bennett, 1141 V. Botsford, 1324 V. Broadway Wharf Co., 1029 V. Brown, 755 V. Burk, 1036 V. Canal Appraisers, 2294 V. Carpenter, 1517 V. Caton, 2338 V. Central R. Co., 20 t». City Bank, 1763 V. City Bank of Rochester, 1762 V. Conklin, 216, 217, 1657 V. Culver, 1028 V. Dudley, 2269 V. Ferris, 595 I'. Field, 1356, 2291 V. Folsom, 196, 215, 216, 21S z*. Gallaa;her. 2325 V. Gillis, 820, 821 V. Goelet, 969, 1340 V. Haskins, 2253 V. Home Ins. Co., 2335 V. Hovey, 662, 1359 V. Hewlett, 2254 V. Irvin, 2289 V. Jenness, 753 V. Jeuners, 753 7'. !Mayor of Brooklyn, 1102, 2325, 2335 V. Mayor of New York, 197 V. McCarthy, 1141 V. Merchants' Bank, 1768 V. New York Gas Light Co., 232S V. Norton, 1662, 1787 V. Palmer, 646 V. Paulding, 1307 V. Quant, 2324, 2329 V. Reed, 1263 V. Rickert, 996, 1301, 1306, 1321, 1322, 1323 V. Robertson, 1006 V. Salem, 2325 ■D. Shackno, 1274, 1344 V. Schoonmaker, 1554 V. Siner, 1213, 1216 V. Smith, 197, 2327 V. Snyder, 221, 222, 1657, 2014 •u. Spaulding, 1334 V. St. Patrick's Cathedral, 40, 41 V. Superior Court of N. Y., 2031 V. Supervisors of Montgomery Co., 2335 V. Toynbee, 2325, 232S V. Utica Cement Co., 498 V. Utica Ins. Co., 1554 V. Van Nostrand, 1263 V. Van Rensselaer, 195, 209 V. White, 370, 390 People ex rel. Aldhouse v. Goelet, 1327, 1329 People ex rel. Botsford v. Darling, 1202, 1302, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1326, 1327, 1329, 1335. 1340. 2232 People ex rel. Chi-om. Steel Co. v. Spaulding, 1317 People ex rel. Dikherz/. German Tnited Evan- gelical Church, 34 People ex rel. Grissler v. Dudley, 1052, 1062 People ex rel. Hubbard z/. Annis, 1287, 128S People ex rel. Kline v. Rickert, 981, 1013 People ex rel. Norton v. Gillis, 477, 478,501, 521, 993 People ex rel. New_ York & H. R. R. Co. if. Commissioners of Texas, 96, 98 People ex rel, Parker Mills v. Commissioners of Texas, 1554 People ex rel. Schock z/. Green, 1029 • People ex rel. The New York Elevated Rail- road V. Commissioners of Texas, 45 People ex rel. Ward v. Kelsey, 992 People's Bank v. Keech, 1884 People's Ice Co. v. Davenport, 74 V. Steamer Excelsior, 198, 983 %i. The Excelsior, 68 People's Loan & Building Association v. White- more, 12 1 3 Peppard v. Deal, 306, 310, 331, 333, 334 Pepper's Estate, 486, 487 Pepper z/. Haiglit, 235S V. O'Dowd, 2297 Peppercorn v. Wayman, 1788 Peralta v. Caslro, 1697 Perez v. Raybaud, 1191, 1197 Perin V, Carey, 245, 257 Perine v. Teague, 2678, 1317 Perkins, Ex- pariey 36S Perkins v. Blood, 2304 V. Boynton, 1884 2/. Cartwell, 1781 V. Cottrell, 1367 V. Coxe, 561 V. Dibble, 2038, 2039, 2129 V. Dickinson, 247 V. Eaton, 1898 V. Governor, The, 1172 V. Hay, 251, 257 V. Little, 707, 776 V. Malterson, 210S V. Matteson, '2106 V. McDonald, 301 V. NichollS; 1646, 1649 V. Perkins, 1514 V. Pitts, 2091 V. Quigley, 1419 V. Sterne, 2095, 2104, 2107, 2134 V. Stockwell, 283 V. Stone, 2099 If. Swank, 118, 119, 122, 139 Perley v. Chase, 2067 Perminter ti. McDaniel, 2339, 2340 Pemam v. Wead, 2220, 2221 Perot V. Levasseur, 2099 Perrin z'. Blake, 438 V. Garfield, 2226 V. Granger, 32, 40 V. Lepper, 2251, 2256 z>. Sargeant, 1517 Perrine v. Chessman, 2363 V. Dunn, 2156 V. Hankinson, 2260 Perrot v. Perrot, 572 Perry v. Adams, 1918 V. Aldrich, 497, 2255, 226S V. Brown, 142 V. Carr. 79, 1153, 1297 V. Goodwin, 975 V. Granger, 1905 J'. Grant, 2005 V. Holden, 2357 V. Karnes, 2069 V. Kline, 238, 401, 408, 411, 415, 420, 447, 469 V. Meadowcraft, 661 V. Meddowcraft, 2044, 2052, 2955 V. McHenry, 1646, 1653 V. Merritt, 1684- V. Perryman, 916, 935, 955 V. Phillips, 1807 V. Pierce, 2319 V. Price, 2318 V. Providence Ins. Co., 1005 V. Roberts, 2099 V. Swazey, 1636 V. Tollier, 537 V Woods, 315 Perrv Manfg. Co. v. Brown, 369, 2oi;8 Penifull 7.. Hind. 1457 Person v. Merrick, 2148 V. O'Neal, 2336 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxv Persons v. Alsip, 2148 V. Schaeffer, 213S Pet V. Hammond, 2144, 2152 Pete V. Hammond, 2150 Peter v. Beverly, q4, 1555, 1560, 1599, 1663, 1731, 1780, 1806, 1810, 1839, 1S41, 1842, 1S43 V. Kendal, 982 Peters z/. Barns, 1160 V. Elkins, 2065 t/, Florence, 2134 V, Grubb, 226S V. Jamestown Bridge Co., 2103, 2104, 2110 V. Lincoln & N. Y. H. R. Co., 1019 Peterson v. Clark, 829, 2040, 2053, 20S0, 2187 V, Edmonson, 1126, 1175 V. Smart, 11 96 Petition of Young, 2361 Petland z'. Keep, 2241, 2243 Petre z\ Espinasse. 1791 V. Heneage, 60 Petrie J'. Bury, 1925 Petsch V. Briggs, 1335, 1340 Pettee v. Case, i666, 2031, 2033 Pettengili w. Evans, 1153, 1297 Pettibone v. Edwards, 2148 V. Griswold, 2027, 2029 PettingUl V. Evans, 2067 Pettinghill v. Porter, 2207, 2221 Pettit p. Shepard, 2331 Pettman v. Bridger, 29, 30, 32 Petts w. Hendricks, 741 Petty V. Doe d. Graham, 1308 V. Kennon, 1286 V. Malier, 599, 675, 734, 735, 741, 1309, 228S V. Tooker, 34 V. Petty, 708, 716, 727, 794, 795, S75, 912 Pettyjohn v. Beasley, 933, 947 V. Pettyjohn, 597 Peugh V. Davis, 20.^9, 2168, 2169 Peverly v. Sayles, 1483, 1514, 1515 Peyton v. Jeffries, 867, 868, 875 V. Smith, 304, 306, 309, 353, 1891 V. Stith, 1214 Pfanner v. Strumer, 47, 48, 1262, 1267 Pfund y. Herlinger, 1166 Pharis v. Leachman, 836, 1363 Phelan Estate, Matter of, 1517 V. Boylan, 504 V. Gardner, 1033 V. Kelly, 1873, 1917 Phelon V. Stiles, 1194 Phelps t/. Chesson, i860, 1862, 1868 v. Conover, 1496, 200S 1/. Jackson, 1622 V. Jepson, 1876, 1881, 1882, 1883, iq68 V. Harris, 1669, 1739, 1832 V. Murray, 2018 V. Nave, 11 13 V. Phelps, 329, 647, 1506, 1689 V. Rooney, 1378, 1379, 1387, 1390, 1417, 1431- 1436, 1446, 1475 V. Sage, 2085, 2 1 28 V. Seely, i6go, i6gi V. Taylor, 1213 V. Townsley, 2100 V. Wait, 1 195 - V. Van Dusen, 2263, 2264 Phelps & Bigelow Windmill Co. -u. Shay, 1496 Philadelphia v. Field, 2325 Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. Dowd, 1761, 1762 Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Durby, 1185, 1730 V. Johnson, 2082 Philadelphia, W. & B. R. -u. Woelpper, 2015, 2018, 2019 Philbrick V. Ewring, 136 v. Spangler, 596 Philbrook v. Delono, 1537, 1700, 2005 Phileo z: Halliday, 487 Philips w. Crammond, 1515, 1611, 1623, 1635, 1636 V, Doe, 1060, 1061 V. Green, 2365 Philleo V. Smalley, 137S, 1445 Phillip's Estate, In r^, 233 Phillip V. Benjamen, 991 V. Doe ex d.. Tucker, 1155 Phillipo 7'. Mumiings, 1782, 1783 Phillipott's Cases, 1040 Phillips V, Allen, 542, 543, 546, 547, 556, 557, 560 V. Aurora Lodge, 1019 V. Bishop, 1473, 1474. J489 I V. Covert, 1 153, 1252, 1277, 1297 V. Disney, 725 V. Doe, 1138, 1150 V. Doolittle, 1 157 V. Eastern R. Co., 1019 V. Eastwood, 1684 V. Ferguson, 1858 V. Grayson, 1361 V. Green, 103 1, 2343 V. Gregg, 1916 V. Hele, 340 ' v. Holmes, 2045, 2067 V. Hulsizer, 2045 V. Hunter, 368, 2057, 2288 V. Kent, 2299 V. Kingsfield, 1456 V. La Forge, 697 V. Maxwell, 22-'2 V. Mebury, 1858 V. Monges, 1132, 1135,1317 V. Moore, 2014 zi. Mosely, 1318, 1326 V. MulUngs, 1 801 V. Pearson, 2126 V. Phillips, 325, 610, 619, 623, 634, 786, 2036, 2123, 2211, 2241, 2242 V. Saunderson, 200S V, Sherman, 1908 V. Sinclair, 2175 V. Smith, 564 V. South Park Commissioners, 1690 V. Springfield, 1460, 1466 V. Stanch, 1485 V. Stevens, 1068, logS, 1099 V, Tliompson, 1614 V. Winslow, gS, 2018, 2019 V. Wooster, 681 V. Worfcrd, 689 Phillips' Academy v. King, 1541, 1555, 1670 Phillips, Doe d., v. Butler, 1336 V. Rollins, 1309 Phillips, Jackson ex d., v. Aldrich, 1296 Phillips' Lessees. Robertson, 996, 1160, 1214, 1322 Phillipson v. Kerry, 1801 V. Mullanphy, 13S Phillpott V. Elliott, 1649 Philpot v. Hoare, 11 13 Phinney v. Johnson, 841, 844, 924 Phipps V. Ingraham, 994 V. Kelynge, 1693 V. Lord Ennismore, 1748 Phoenix Co. v. Fletcher, 2239 Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 1059 Phyfe v. Riley, 2000, 2169 V. Wardell, 1089, 1090, 1091 Physick's Appeal, 318, 328, 1675 Physick v. Physeck, 596 Piatt z*. Dawes, 1020 V. Hubbell, 1976 V. Oliver, 695, 1623, 1770, 1963 V. Vattier, 1519 Pibusz/. Mitford, 1538 Picardy ?'. Central Bank, 1690, 1691 Pickard v. Collins, rigg V. Kleis, 1130, 1134 V. Sears, 2302 Pickens v. Reed, 136 clxxxvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Pickeis V. Webster, 49 lickering v. Coates, 1656 V. Danson, 1200 V. Langdon, 535, 536 V, Pickering, 1872 V. Reynold, 2334 V. Shotwell, 1656 Pickett V. Brown, 2206 V. Euckner, 800, 801, 2164 V. Chilton, 645 V. Dowdell. 2303 V. Ferguson, 1164 V. Jones, 2104, 2160 V. Lyles, igg V. Peay, gi8, 928, 935, 942, 944 V. Pecay, 916 zt. Sutter, 1033 Pico V. Columbet, 1895, 1904 Pickle V. McKessick, i860 Picot V, Page, 1883, iggo Pidge V. Tyler, 208, 2364 Pidgeley ti. Rawling, 560 Pidgeon v. Trustee of Schools, 2071 Pier ^ Carr, 112S, 1129, 1168 Pierce v. Brew, 1094 V. Brown, 1220, 1222 v. Burroughs, 504 V. Cambridge, 1288 V. ChaCe, 1935, 1940, 1941 V. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.. 1515 V. Commissioner of Emigi-ation, 1863 V. Dyer, 64 V. Emery, 97, 98, 142, 2017, zoiS, 2019, 2342 V. George, 106 V. Goddard, 2186 V. Hakes, 414, 600, 681, 692 V. Hobbs, 731 V. Keator, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2211, 2240 V. McKeehan, 1759 V, Methodist Episcopal Church, 41 V. Milwaukee R. Co., 2018 V. Milwaukee St St. P. R. Co., 2019 V. Minturn, 220/^ V. Pierce, 966, 1131, 1634, 1657, 2254, 2270 V. Potter, 2158 V. Robinson, 2045, 2047, 2050 V. Trigg, 1964 V. Wannett, 613, 628 V. Williams, 852, 855, S58, 859, 877 V. Win, 499 Piercy z/. Roberts, 253 Pierre -v. Fernald, 2223 Pierrepont %>. Barnard, 55, 56 Pierson v. Armstrong, 2359, 2360 V. Hitchner, 859, 860 V. Howey, 751, 752 V. Lane, 118, 378, 380, 396, 4=2, 45S , V. Shore, 77, logi 7'. Townsend, 2338 V. Truax, 1456 V. Turner, 212, 1309 Pifer V. Ward, 744, 745, 778, 814, S91, 922, 923 Piggot V. Mason, 1008 Piggott's Case, 1827 Pigot V. Garnish, 1023 Pike V. Brown, 1063, 2068 V. Collins, 2027 V. Eyre, 1107, 1123 V. Goodnow, 2153, 2181 V. Miles, 1480, 1481 V. Underbill, 806, 850 V. Wassell, 504 Pilcher v. Rawlins, 1778 Pile V. McBratney, 501 Pilkington v. Boughy, 1630, 1638 Pilla V. Germain School Assoc, 217, 21S Pilling V. Armitage, 1087 Pillow u. Love, 126 V. Wade, 647 Pillsbury v. Moore, 2226, 2245 Pillsworth V. Hopton, 571 Pim V. Downing, 1733, 1734 P. R. M. Co. V. D. S. G. R. Co., T042. Pidgen, Doe d., v. Richards, 1263, 1293, 1295 Pindall v. Trevor, 1620, 1760 Pine V. Rector of Trinity Church, 1159 V. Liecester, in8 Pinero v. Judson, 1343 Pingree v. Coffin, 1665, i6go Pingrel v. McDuffe, 2220 Pingrey v. Watkins, 1112, 1117 Pinhoi-n v. Souster, 1266, 1294, 1296, 1297, 1307, 1334 Pinkerton v. Tumlin, 1501, 1502,1579 Pinkham t. Gear, 851, 852, 856 Pinkston v. Brewster, 1781 Pinnell %k Boyd, 206a, 2068, 2069 Pinney v. Fellows, i6go, i6gi Pinnington v. Galland, 92 Pinnock v. Clough, 1645, 1651, 1653 Pinson v. Ivey, 1539, 1659 V. McGehee, 1690 Pinston v. Ivey, 1782 Pintard ?/. Goodloe, 2006 Pintard, Jackson ex d., v. Bodole, 1016 Piper's Estate, 504, 506, 534 Piper V. Johnston, 1362 V. May, 662 7'. Moulton, 1603, 1604, 16S6 V. Richardson, 750 V. Smith, ig6r, 1964, 1965 Pipkin V. Allen, 1896 Pippin V. Ellison, 2 Piqua Branch State Bank t'. Knoop, 2335 Piscataqua Bridge Co. z'. New Hampshire Co., 2325 Piscataqua Exchange Bank z/. Carter, 1699 Pitcher v. Barrows, 2364 V. Tovey, 1074, 2265 Pitkin V. Noyes. 51 Pitt, Doe d., V. Hogg, 1146 V. Hunt, 1361 V. Jackson, 656, 1040, 1838 V. Shew, 145 V, Smith, 1032, 1033, 1034 Pittman -v. Pittman, 1586 Pitts 1'. Aldrich, 80S, 925, 2130 IK Aldridge, 728 V. Cable, 2052, 2053 V. Hall, 1884 V. Hendrix, 46 V. Parker, 2007 V. Pitts, 894 Pittsburg V. Danford, 2302 V. Scott, 2328 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. -u. Columbus C. R. Co., 1019 Pittsburgh & St. L. R. Co. v. Rothchild, 368, 2057 Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co, v. Theobald, 1194 Pittsburgh, V.-& C R. Co. v. Bentley, 473, 494 Pittsfield Bank v. Howk, 1503 Pixley V. Clark, 2232 V. Pliggins, 2120 Pizalla zi, Campbell, 737, 837 Plaisted v Holmes. 1602 Planter v. Cunningham, 1079 7'. Scrwood, 624, 625, 627 Planters' Bank v. Davis, 693, 698, 703 V. Henderson, 14S1 v. Neely, 1716 V. Prater, 1622, 2106 V. Sharp, 1510, 1511 V. Walker, 136 Planters' Bank of Mississippi v. Sharp, 2332 Planters' Bank of Tennessee v. Davis, 692 Planters' Ins. Co. v. Diggs, 1138, 1139, 1151, Planters and Merchants' Rank of Mobile v. Andrews, 1540, 1554 Plantt V. Payne, 820 Plato V. Roe, 1996, 2039, 2050, 2168 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxx Vll Platt*s Estate, 636 Piatt V. Brown, 2321 V. Johnson, loi, 2225 w. Smith, 2141 V. Squire, 2147 V. Stewart, 1975, 1985 Platte V. Cady, 1476, 1496 Player, Den ex d., t'. Nicholls, 973, 980, 1553, »5g5. '597- 1694 Playford v, Playford, 2173 Pleasant v. Benson, 1306, 1344 Pleasants v. Claghorn, 1002, 1323 Pledger 7'. Easterling, 17S4 2/. EUerbee, 659, 760, 764, 781, 800, S70, 925 Plenty v. West, 1560 Plimb's Case, 1554 Plimpton V. Converse, 2207, zaig, 2244 V. Farmers' Ins. Co., 2114 z/. Insurance Co.,2iiS Pluck V. Diggs, 1 109 Plumb V. Sawyer, 635, 637, 671, 1376 &. Tubbs, 259, 267, 268, 269, 185S Plumer v. Guthrie, 2050 V. Plumer, 78, 79, So, 566, 1213 Plumleigh v. Cook, 706, 1071, iS.ig Plummer z/. Jarman, 1641 Plunket &. Homes, 320, 693, 694 Plush z*. Digges, 1112 Plymouth v. Hickman, 1691 Plympton v. Boston Dispensary, 504, 505 Poad V. Watson, 335 Podmore v. Gunning, 347, 1691 Poedon v. Boston L. R. Co., 2216 Peer v. Peebles, 2273 Pogue z^. Clark, 2148 Poiguard i>. Smith, 2091, 2092, 2101, 2295 Poindexter -ii. Blackburn, 537 V. McCannon, 2052, 2053 Poindexter's Exrs. v. Green's Exrs., 510 Polack V. Pioche, 1099, 1106, 1152 Polk V. Gallant, 1773 z'. Reynolds, 810, 1047 V. Rose, 2335 , Pollack z*. Kelly, 1024, 1930, 1939, 1945 Pollard V. Greenville, 1040 V. Hagan, 707 V, Jekyi, 208 V. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 2115 V. Noyes, 510 z/. Shaafer, 553, 1072, 1074, 1075, 1203 V. Slaughter, 780 •u. Somerset Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2116 Pollen V. Brewer, 1142, 1258, 1269, 1351 Poliitt V. Forrest, 2254 V. Long, 2225 Pollock V. Cronise, 2251 V. Kittrell. 1252 V. Madison, 1998 V. Speidel, 401, 402, 410, 447, 450, 461, 465 v. Stacy, II 12 Polyblank v. Hawkins, 1364, 1365 Pomeroy v. Bailey, 1623 V. Lambeth, 1268 V. Latting, 2124, 2125 V. Mills, 22 1 1 V, Partington, 1039, 1040,1807 V. Pomeroy, 727, 794, 912 Pomet 7'. Scranton, 2126 Pomfret v. Ricroft, ti66, 2207, 2208 V. Winsor, 1783 Pond z/, Clarke, 2133,2141 V. Eddy, 2045 V. Johnson, 868 ^ V. Kimball, 1399, 1432 Ponder z/. Catterson, 1214 V. Graham. 597, 893 Pool V. Balkie, 653, 656, 680, 688, 697, 699, 1:^72 V. Hathaway, 2127, 2130 V. Lewis, 2228 Pool z;. Morris, 446, 1912 V. Pool, 1666 Poole's Case, 49, 126, 130, 146, 1187 Poole V. Bentleym, 993 V. Cook, 1513 V. Gerrard, 1406, 1409, 1450, 1452, 1454, M55i M70. 1473, M74) M9^ 1524 V. Johnson, 2171 z'. Longuerville, 1365 z'. Mundy, 1715 Pooley V. Budd, 1574 Poor V. Horton, 711, 759 V, Oakman, 63, 141, 514 Pope z*. Anderson, 1881 V. Biggs, 1 171, 1172, 2065 z'. Devereaux, 2247 V, Durant, 2146 V. Elliott, 254, 272 V. Garland, 1301, 1325 V. Garvaud, 1182 V. Harkins, 1212, 1894, 2250, 2257 V. Henry, 211, 2366 v. Jacobus, 2111 z'. Meade, 733, 839 V. Nickerson, 2057 •u. O'Hara, 2246 v. Pope, 347, 1627, 1632, 1684 V. Town of Union, 2205, 2206 V. Whitcombe, 316 Pope's Exrs. v. Elliott, 1747 Popham V. Banfield, 202, 1870 zv. Banpfieid, 1807 Popkin V. Bumstead, 803, SoS, 887, 928 Poposkey z>. Munkwit?,, 1245 Porch t*. Fries, 587, 588, 617, 620, 631, 632, 653, 669, 670, 1362 Porche v. Bodin, 45, 46, 49 Porcherz*. Daniels, 1806 Port z*. Clements, 2146 V. Jackson, iioi, 2263,2264 V. Port, 594, 596, 752, 757 Porter z/. Bank of Rutland, 1371, 1502 V. Batclay, 866 V. Bowers, 671, 1363, 1364, 1366 V. Blieler, 985, 1022, 1023 V. Bradley, 320, 321, 322 V. Cole. 2353 V. Doby, 300, 1605, i6og, 1694 V. Durham, 2225 V. Gorden, 1324 V. Hill, 1924, 1967, 1976 V. Hubbard, 2271 V. Lafferty, 2091 V. Lazear, 792, 793 V. Lopes, 1974 V. Mayfield, 1213 •V. McClure, 1239 V. Mariner, 15 18 V. Merill, 1072, 1115, 1156 V. Moores, 1735 V. MuUer, 1922,2036, 2151 V. Nelson, 2046 V. Noyes, 729, 730, 1092,1093 V. Pierce, 169S V. Pillsbury, 2157 V. Porter, 624, 633, 651, 66t, 662, 670, 1366 V. Robinson, 715, 781, 836, 2349 V. Rockford, 2335 ■V. Sweeney, 2252, 2257, 2259 V. Vaughn. 1281 V. Williams, 1795 Portington's Case, 373, goo, 1851 Portis T'. Hill, 1710, 1723 Portland v. Topham, 1830 Portlock z/. Gardener, 1784 Posey V. Bass, 1454 V. Budd, 401, 447 V. Cook, 1560, 1606 Post V. Dart, 2^071, 2112 71. Dorr,*2o66 z/. Kearney, 1075, riiz V. Kimberley, 1240 .elxxxviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Post 71. Logan, 2268 V. Moi-an, 1141 V. Parshall, 2240 71. Pearsal], 2211, 2212, 2214, 2217 V. Phelun, 1287 V. Post, 973, 1256, 1257, 1260, 1271, 1274, J280, i28ij 1337 V. Velter, 1054, 1068, 1106, 1107, 1201 Poston z/. Eubanks, 2155 z. Gillespie, 658, 659, 795 V. Jones, 1081 Potiar V, Barclay, 751 Potomac Coal Co. v. Cumberland, etc., R. Co., it8o Pott's Appeal, 396, 402, 419 Pott V. Eyton, 1242 V. Todhurst, 2349 Pottenger v. Stewart, 415 Potter 7'. Brown, 753, 755 V. Chapin, 166 V. Cromwell, 103, iii, 112, 113, 114, ir6, "7, 133. i35> »37j "86 V. Everett. 839 V. Gardner, 1749, 1764 7>. Knowles, 1288 V. McAlpine, 269 V. Mercer, 992, 993, 1314 V. Seymour, 1194, 1195 V. Stevens, 2105, 2107 V. Titcomb, 368, 750, 2058, 2289 V. Wakefield, 646 V. Wheeler, 785, 857, 886, 887, 1973, 1975, 1989 71. Worley, 955 Potts 7'. Cloeman, 2297 V. Davenport, 976, 1423, 1424, 1434, 1445, 1461 V. New Jersey Arms Co., 113 V. Plaisted, 2131 V. Smith, 2208 Pouce V. McEloy, 1637 Pouder v. Catterson, 1213 Poullan V. Kinsinger, 2335 Poulteney v. Shelton, 1185 Poulter V. Killengback, 50 Pouitneyz'. Barrett, 1138 V. Holmes, 1118, 2252 Pournell v. Harris, 411, 447, 468 Powcey V. Bowen, 1838 Power z'. Cassidy, 1637, 1684 77. Haffley, 22S2 71. Jendevine, 1824 V. Nesbit 7'. Power, 1985 Powers V. Andrews, 2169, 2171 V. Bergen, 2328, 2329, 1798 V. Dennison, 144, 126S V. Golden Lumber Co., 2169 V. Jackson, 779, 787 V. Kueckhoff, 1755, 1778, 1779 V. Lester, 200, 2016, 2101 V. Ocean Ins. Co., 2114, 2115 V. Wheler, 779 Powell V. Boggs, 2291 V. Conant, 2033, 2035 V. De Hart, 1286 V. Dillon, 998, 1043 7j. Gossom, 607, 608, 6og, 610 V. Glenn, 1796 V. Glover^76, 1621 V. Hadden's Exrs,, 1281 V. Jewett, 1666 z/. Knox, 1730, 1885 V. Monson & B. Mfg. Co., 105, 106, 591, 729, 730, 740, 761, 788, 789, 791, 823, 827, 841, 842, 844, 866, 900, 909, 1092, 1O03 V. McAsham, 145 V. Murray, 1562, 1781 7j. Powell, 660, 733, 736, mo, 1887 V. Rollins, 570 V. Sims, 2223, 2224, 2241 Powell 71. Smith, 1007, 2141 7>. Tuttle, 2159 V. Weeks, 773 V. Williams, 1997 Powis z/. Smith, 1901 Pownal V. Myers, 1707, 1713 V. Taylor, 1665, i6go, 1723 Powseley v. Blackman, 1279 Powys V. Blagiave, 570, 573 Prall V. Smith, 669, 1366 Praf.r 7j. Hoorer, 692 Prather v. Foote, 974, 1039 V. Hill, 1758 V. McDowell, 901, 911, 1777 Pratt, Re, 1463 Pratt V. Ayer, 1592 V. Bank of Bennington, 520, 2097, 2107 7'. Brown, 2328 V. Clark, 2005, 2009 V. Coffman, 46 V. Colt, 1747 V. Douglass, 918, 944 V. Farrar, 1137, 1293, 1294, 1296, 1351, 1355 V. Felton, 933, 947 V. Flamer, 408, 415, 424 71. Frear, 2174 V. Levan, 1114, 11x5 V. New York Central Ins. Co., 1058, *o59 V, Pratt, 2080 V. Sanger, 449 V. Skofield, 2100 V. Smith, 588 V. Theft, 750 7j. Thornton, 1714, 1726, 1767, 1768, 1776, 1781 7/. Van Wyck, 1997, 2009 Pratt, Doe d.,.v. Timins, 1595, 1596 Pray's Appeal, 1721 Pray v. Clark, 1053, 1087 V. Pierce, 2316, 2317 V. Stebbins, 1024, 1033, 1935, 1942, 1944, 1952 Preacher s Aid Society v. England, 298, 1564, 1796 Preble v. Hay, 1310 Preece 71. Corrie, 2252 Preice v. Sellick, 2241 Prendergast, 1740 Prentice v. Acliorn, 1033 V. Brimhall, 2166 V. Geiger, 2225 V. Jaassen, 1987 Presbaker v. Freeman, 2038, 2039 Presbyterian Church v. Andruss, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36 V. Johnston. 1744 Prescott V. De Forrest, 1122 7'. Elltngwood, 2102 V. Elm 1274, 1335, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1343 7J Hull, 2107 71. Nevers, 210, 1899, 1914, 1915, 2296 V. Otterstatter. 1084, 1085 v. Prescott, 411, 1386, 1442, 1443 V. Trueman, 729, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095 V. Walker, 760, 788 V. White, 2228, 2229 V. Williams, 2228, 2229 Presley z/. Davis, 323, 1782 Presly v. Siribbing, 1703, 1741 Prestman v. Silljacks, 974, 1219, 1220 Preston v. Briggs, 135, 145, 146, 1204 V. Fyer, 647 V. Hawlev, 2270 V. McCall, 2254 V. Ryan, 49 V. Wilcox, 1662 Pretts 7>. Ritchie, 711 Pretty 7'. Bickmore, iigS, 1199, 1201 Prettyman v. Unland, 2272 V. Walston, 504, 505, iioi References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxix Prevost, Succession of, 595 Prevost V. Clark, 1629 V. Gratz, 1623, 1695, 17S2 V. Prevost, 596 Prevot V. Lawrence, 987, 1035, 1221 Prewett v, Buckingham, 1781 V. Wilson, 959 Prey v. Johnson, 2362 Prial V. Entwistle, 1323, 2271 Price, In rtf, 1399. 1629 Price V. Alexander, 1240, 1242, 1244 V. Assheton, 1088 V. Binfliam, 647 V. Brayton, 119 V. Byrn, 1776 V. Chase, 591 v. Cutts, 203S V. Dyer, 65, 1007, 1008 V. Gover, 2045, 2047 z'. Griffith, 999 V. Haynes, 2354 V, Hicks, 824 T*. Hobbs. 711, 712, 713, 725, 748, 759, 822, 8^0, S41, ^42, 843, 844 V. Hunt, 1-357 71. Johnston, 713 V. Karnes, 2052 V. Masterson, 2061 V. Methodist Episcopal Church, 32 V. Miiiot, 1665, 16S9, 1690 7'. Mott. 671 V. Mulford, 1783 V. Nicholas, 998 V. Perree, 1996, 2051 V. Price, 42, 44, 769, 770, 816, 817, 857, 1293, 1295 z>. Pickett, 498, 538, 1207 zi. Reeves, 1655, i6go V. Sisson, 1543, 1559, 1575, 1655, 1692, 1704, 1736 V. Weehawken Ferry Co., 61 V. Woodford, 938 Price, Doe d., v. Price, 1267, 1293, 1326 Prichard, 225 Prickett v. Ritter, 1131, ii35j "3fJ» 1316, 1339 Pride v. Bubb, 2012 V. Earl of Bath, 883 Pridgeon v. Excelsior Boat Club, 1166, 1167 Priest V. Cone, 2013 zi. Cummings, 712, 750, 775, 905, 908, 1657 Priestly v. Johnson, 123 Primm V. Barton, i486 V. Syewart, 523 z>. Walker, 1911, 1924 Prince's Case, 182/ Prince v. Case, 144. 617 V. Hake, 1506 Princeton v. Adams, 1850 Principal Harrow School v. Alderton, 565, 2212, 2213 Prindle v. Anderson, 1302, 1326, 1328, 1339, n44 Pringe v. Childs, 2291 Pringle v. Dunkly, 271 V. Dunn, 1778, 2121, 2123, 2359, 2366 71. Pringle, 2100 V. Witten, 730 Prior V. Foster, 1045 Prior, Doe d., v. Ongley, 1266 Prison Charities, In re, 1685 Pritchard v. Elton, 1996, 2168, 2321 Pritts V. Ritchey, 759, 782, 804, 828 Probasco v. Johnson, 2003, 2004 Probert zf. Morgan, 964, 1837 Procter v. Bigelow, 717, 871 V. Cowper, 2176 V. Ferebee, 75 V. Gilson, 81 V. Keith, X059 V. Newhall, 686 V. Procter, 1666 V. Tows, 1140 Proctor V. Hodgson, 2220, 2242 V. Robinson, 2102 Prodgers v. Laughran, 1626 Proffitt V. Anderson, 566 V. Henderson, 549 Proprietors of Battle Sq. Church v. Grant, 302, 322, 323, 327, 1049, j^si Proprietors of Kennebeck Purchase v. Springer; 2098, 2291, 2292 Proprietors of iMt:e ting-House v. City of Lowell, 64, 507 Proprietois of No. Six z/. McFarland, 1258, 1290 Proprietors of Soutli Congregational Meeti.ig- House V. Lowell, 1015 Proprietors of Union Meeting-House v. Rowell, 36 Proseus v. Mclntyre, 1636, 1640 Protchard v. Brown, 1579, 1697, 1699, 1700 Proud V. Bates, 90, 93 Prout V. Hoge, 2106 V. Roby, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1154 z>. Wiley, 1031 Prouty z'. Prouty, 1274, 1338 Prov. C. U. V. Cliott, 1043 Providence County Bank zj. Benson, zriS Providence Gas Co. ?'. Thurber, 112, 1186 Providence Savings Bank t. Hall, 1227 Providence Tool Co. v. Corliss Steam Engine Co., 2242 Provo -u. Calder, 9S2, 983, 985 Provoost Z-. Clayer, 536 Provost 71. Calder, 2263 Prug V. Davis, 2282 Pryal v. Entwistle. 996 Pryon v. Mood, 299, 1553 Pryor r. Bowryman, 2073 V. Stone, 1386, 1387, 1419, 1420, 1431, 1434, 1436, 1439, 1442, 1443, 1459 V. Wood, 586 Pue V. Pue, 2247 Puddicombe Doe d., v. Harris, 1308 Puffer V. Clark, 2142 Pugh V. Arton, 129, 130, 143, 146 2/. Bell, 782. 827 V. Currie, 787, i960 V. Good, 1977 V. Holt, 2040, 2148 V. Leed, 1006, 1040 V. Pugh, 1622 Pugsley V. Aikin, 975, 1134. 1136, 1224, 1254. 1255, 1300, 1334, 1342 Pulbam V. Byrd, 536 Pullan V. Cincinnati & C. Air-Line R., 2066 Pullch V. Bell, 63 Pullen ». Middleton,436 V. Ready, 11 57 V. Rianhard, 1560, 1674, 1675 PulHam V. Byrd, 317, 319, 1820 V, Sewell, 1510 Pulman v. Cincinnati, & C. Air-Line R. Co., 2018, 2019 Pulteney z>. Craven, 1040 V. Shelton, 79 Pulpress V. African Church, 1740 Pulse V. Hamar, 996, 1036 Pulvertoft z/. Pulvertoft, 1791 Pumpelly v. Phelps, 1247 Purcell, Matter of, 2016 V. English, 1191, 1197 V. Goshorn, 2331 V- Smidt, 215, 216 V, Wilson, 310, 1897, 1915 Purdie v. Whitney, 288, 1754, 2159 Purdy V. Bullard, 2002 V. Huntingdon, 520, 810 V. Huntington, 2096, 209S, 2104, 2110, 2121 V. Purdy, 782, 1613, 1651, 1881, 1968 Purefoy v. Rodgers, 816 V. Rogers, 322, 324. 886, 1940 Purinton v. Northern Illinois R. Co., 135 Purl V. Duvall, 782 cxc TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Purner z'. Piercy, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55 Purrington v. Pierce. 842, 2042 Pursley z*. Forth, 2155 Purvis V, Wilson, 1914, 1983 Pusey V. Pusey, 60 Pushman v. Filliler, 347, 1629, 1632, 1684 v. Tilliter, 1627 Putman v. Kitchie, 1726 V. Mercantile Insurance Company. 1668 V. Weslcott, 975, 1225 V. Wise, looi, 1229, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1238, 1239 Putnam 7>, Bicknell, 647 %i. Callamore, 305, 806, 808 V. Emei-son, 305, 308, 311, 335 V. Karnham, 2071 ZK Gleason, 234 V. Johnson, 1456 V. New Albany & S. C. J. R. R. Co., 15S1 V. Putnam, 753, 1S84, 2151, 2184 V. Retchie, 1022, 1023, igo8, 1912, 2185 Putnam's Free School v. Fischer, 1730, 1788, 1806 Putney v. Day, 53, 54, 55, 537 V. Dresser, 1877 Pybus V. Smith, 251, 257, 647 Pye, Ex Parte, 1587, 1739 Pyer ?'. Carter, 2207 Pyle V. Penncck, 105, iii, 113, 114, 138, 144, 2022 Pym V. Bowarman, 2170 ■V. Lockyer. 260, 272 Pynchon v. Lester, 785, 802, 803 V. Stearns, 521, 544, 550, 555, 557, 565, 575, 1 164 Q. Quackenboss v. Clarke, 11 14, 11 19 Quackenbush v. Danks, 1510, 1511 Quaker Society v. Dickenson, 225 Quarles v. Garrett, 947 V. Quarles, 2357 Quarrington v. Arthur, 811 Queen V. Brighton, 753 V. Chorley, 2243, 2245, 2247 t'. Inhabitants of Greenboro, 2203 V. Inhabitants of Parish of Lee, 105 V, Millis, 595 V. Northumberland, 85 Queen Anne's Co. v. Pratt, 814 Queen's College v. Hallett, 553 Quehl V. Peterson, 1453 Quick V. Whitewater Township, 2325 Quimby v. Conlan, 2300 V. Dill, 516 •u. Higgins, 2279, 2283 , V. Manhattan Cloth Co., 113, 117, 132 Quinn v. Brittain, 2087, 2088 zi. Coleman, 713 Quincy V. Cheeseman, 2067 Quincy, The Inhabitants of, v. Spear, 1290 Quint V. Little, 2095 Quinnette v. Carpenter, 1131, 1315, 1316 Quinn v. Perham, 1045 V. Shields, 1689 Quiver 37. Baker, 2301 R. Rabb V. Griffin, 603, 679, 686, 689 Rabc V. Tyler, 1885 V. Taylor, 1902 Rabun v. Rabun. 1665, i6go Raby %>. Ridehalgh, 1721 Race V. Oldridge, 1399, 1402 Rachael v. Pearsall, loio, 2259 Racine & M. R. R. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 1727 Racouillat v. Rene, 2037 V. Sansevain, 215, 2126 Radcliffe v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 2230, 2232 RadclifEe v. Wood, 1399 Radford v. Carwile, 251, 257, 896 V. Willis, 1867 Radley v. Kuhn, 1798 Radway, Re^ 1504 Rae V. Harvey, 202 Rafferty v. Mallory, 1778 V. New Brunswick Ins. Co., 2115 Ragland v. Justice, 1995 V. Rogers, 1390, 1419 Ragsdale v. Lander, 996 V. Ragsdale, 1589 Raguet V. Roll, 2060 Rahway Savings Institute v. Irving Street Baptist Church, no Rail V. Dotson, 338, 536 Railroad Co. v. Boyer, 492 V. Schurmeier, 69 V. Siy, 1019 Raines v. Corbin, 935, 941, 956 V. Kneller, 1138, 1150 •u. Walker, 2301 Rakestraw v. Brewer, 2094 Raleigh & Garton R. Co. v. Davis, 2325 Ralls V. Highs, 931 Ralph V. Lomer, 1214 Raisback v. Walk, 996, 1322 Ralston v. Fields, 2305 V. Ralston, 723, 724, 789, 821, 840, 844, ■ 846, 863 V. Wain, 31S, 328, 1674 Ramires v. Kent, 215, 122 Ramirez -v. McCormack, 2207 Rammelsburg v. Mitchell, 1740 Ramsbottom v. Wallis, 2172 Ramsdell v. Emery, 1646 V. Fuller, 1947, 1948 It. Maxwell, 1259 zi. Ramsdell, 318, 536, 1815 Ramsden v. Dyson. 1087 V. MacDonald, 625 V. Thorton, 1278 Ramsey v. Joyce, 795 V. March, 298, 1558, 1565, 1607, 1655 V. Merriam, 2164 V. Smith, 2330 Ranba v. Bill, 835 Rancel v. Croswell, 415 Randalls'. Aburtis, 1166 V. Bradley, 2174, 2175 V. Cleveland, 553 V, Duff, 2073, 2170 V. Dusenhury, 1587 V. Elwell, gS V. Ghent, 2331, 2359 V. Hazleton, 2160 V. Krieger, 714 V. Lower, 2301 7'. Mallett, 1911 V. Phillips, 1618, 1885, 196S ZI. Sanderson, 2223 V. Shrader, 1815 V. Thompson, 997 z). Tuchin, 305. 308, 310, 312 7'. Chesapeake Canal Co., 2362 Randal v. Elder, 1387, 1415, 1419, 1439, 1440 Randolph v. Carlton, 1212, 2250, 2251 7'. Doss, 764, 765 V. Gwnne, 105 Rands v. Kendall, 782, 826, 828, 1998, 2078 Rangeley v. Midland R. Co., 2203, 2211 Ranger v. Great Western R. Co., 1872 Ranke zi. Hanna, 892, 912 Rankert v. Clow, 2009 Rankin's Appeal, 614 Rankin v. Demott, 2254 71. Harper, J647, 1658 V. Kinsey, 2067 V. Loder, 1794 ■References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXCl Rankin v. Mayor, 2100, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2148 7K Mortimere, 2050, 2168 V. Rankin, 94, 656, 657, 1754, 1755 V. Shaw, 1481 V. Warner, 2359 Ranlett v. Cook, 1320 Kannells v. Geruer, 903 Ranney ». McCuUen, 2166, 2167 Ransley v. Stott, 252, 369, 454, 461 Ransom, Matter of, 767, 768 R.itisom, Re, 786, 787 Ransom v. Babcock, 1290 V. Nichols, 670 V. RaiiEom, 587, 781 V. Sutherland. 2167 Ransone 7>. Prayser, 2055 Rantin v. Robertson, 1079 Rauyer v. Lee, 731 Rapelye v. Prince, 2089 Rapheal z>. Boehm, 1725 Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., 2169 Rapp V. Stoner, 2068 Rappanier v. Bannon, 2136, 2138 Rardin v. Walpole, 2136, 2138, 2160 Rashleigh v. Master, 307 Rasor v. Quails, 1205, 1210 Rasure v. Hart, 1399, 1402 RatclifEe v. Graves, 17 15 Rathbone -u. Clark, 2154 V. Dyckman, 965 V. Tioga Nav. Co.. 224 Raliff z'. Ellis, 1589, 1610, 1697, 1701 Rattle V. Popham, 1039 Raubdscheck v. Senken, 2257 Rauch V. Dech, 2018 Raugh V. Ritchie, 2274 Rausch V. Moore, 711,734, 741, 838 Ravencroft v. Ravencroft, 661 Ravtrty t'. Fridge, 904 Rawdon v. Rawdon, 660, 755 Rawinson 7'. Clarke, 1241 Rawley zk Holland, 1538 Rawlings v. Adams, 679, 6S0 V. Landes, 76 V. Ruttell. 842 Rawlins v Buttel, 894 V. Goldfrap, 322 V. Lowndes, 765, 804, 829 V, Rawlins, 618 Rawlinson z/. Miller, 1974 Rawls V. Deshler, 1746 Rawltings v. Hunt, 2020 Rawson v. Inhabitants, 1856 V. Inhabitants of School District No. 5, in Uxbridge, 1850 V. Putman, 2092 Rawstron v, Taj'lor, 2230 'R?LY,Exparie, 1371 Ray V. Adams, 1629 V. Lynes, 2223 V. Oliver, 2158 V. Pung, 780, 885, 1576 V. Simmons, 1586, 1587, 1592 V. Sweeney, 21, 78, 2223 Raybold 71. Raybold, 1592, 1691 Rayboum v. Ramsdell, 1138, 1150, 2254 Rayland v. Rogers, 1388 Raymond v Holden, 591 V. Kerker. 2250 V. Thomas, 225: V. White, 104, 108 Raynerv, Stone, 1083 V. Lee, 717, 731 Raynham v. Wilmarth, 864 Raynor v. Haggard, 1290 V. Selnus, 2146,2151 V. Raynor, 841 Re Adams, 1824 Re Albany Street, 232S Re Rogers. 2327 Re Sands Ale Brewing Co., 21 19 Rea V. Copelin, 1620 Read v. Allen, 11 70 V. Erington, 1141 ^- Flogg. 2301 « V. Frankfort Bank, 1511 •V, Gaillard, 2040 V. Goodyear, 2295 V. Lawnse, 2250 V. Payne, 307 V. Robinson, 1016, 1786 V. Stedman, 1637 V. Truelove, 1660 Read, Doe d., v. Ridout, 1335 Reade v. Livingston, 1626 V. Ward, 117 Reading's Case, 1917 Reading v, Weston, 2054 Reading R. Co. v. Boyer, 493 Readman v. Conway, 1202 Ready v. Hamm, 8co V. Kearsley, 297, 1592 Real Estate Trust Co. v. Balch, 2330 Ream v. Hamish, 1207, 1230 Rear v. Rear, 772 7'. Winkler, 730 Rearich v, Swinehart, i6g8, 1702 Reasoner v. Edmundson, iggg Reaume v. Chambers, 281, 288, 531, 586, 603, 605, 612, 668, 706 Reavis v. Fielden,2io6 Re Hreck, 2260 Recht V. Kelly, 1506 Reek's Estate, 1420, 1433 Recknow v. Schank, 1348, 1353 Re Commercial Bulletin Co., 2266 Re Commissioners Central Park, 2324 Rector v. Burkhard, 1198 V. Burkhart, 1197 V. Gibbon, 1446 v. Rotten, 1450, 1467 V. Waugh, 284, 1877, 1924, 1967 Rector, etc., of Trinity Church z/. Higgins, noi V. Vanderbilt, 1105 Re Curry 71. Burrus, 2324 Re D'Angibau, 1827 Redd z>. Burrus, 2020 Reddall v. Bryan, 2327 Redden v. Barker, 1290 Reddick t. Grossman, 1998, 2078 V. Walsh, 731, 767 Redding v. White, 1029 Rede v. Farr, 1058, 1138 Redfem v. Middleton, 515, 1142, 2321 V. Redfern, 1403, 1405, 1407, 140S, 1450, 1479 Redfield v. Utica & S. R. Co., 970 Redford v. Gibson, 2008 Redgrave v. Redgrave, 757 Redlon v. Barker, 103, 105, loS Redman v. Sanders, 1997, 1998, 2077, 2097 Redpath v. Rich, 217 V. Roberts, 1295, 1343 Red River Roller Mills v. Wright, loi, 2224, 2225 Redshaw v. Governor, 1009 Redstrake v. Townsend, 402. 447, 470 Redus V. Hayden, 603, 688, 692, 703 Redwood v. Riddick, 1782 Reece t. Allen, 1707, 1713 Reech 7>. Kenegal, 1616 Reed z'. Allerton, j66o V. Ash, 718, 733, 735.739 V. Austin, 1702 7<. Bartlett, 2258 V. Batchelder, 2343 zK Campbell, 1087 V. Crocker, 2278 V. Dickerman, 918, 932, 944, 946, 947,951 V. Fidelity Insurance Trust and Safe Deposit Co., 1988 V. Gorden, 1558 V. Johnson, 52 V. Jones, 1893, 1896 cxcu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Reed v. Kennedy, 763, S24 V. Latsou, 15S0, 2061 ^. Lewis, 1104, 11S4J 1185 V. LukinSj 1665, i6go V. Marble, 2110, 2149, 2151 V. Morrison, 765, 766, 783, 830, 923 V, Reed, 561, 68r, 692, 700, 703, 812, 1266, 1293, 1294, 1296; 1350, 1355, 2040, 2087, 2ogo, 2185 V. Reynolds, 1128, 1174 V. Shepley, 1160 V, Steveson, 764, 766 z/. Underbill, 1826 V. Union Bank of Winchester, 1506 V, Ward, 2268 V. Washington Fire Ins. Co., 1051 V. West, 1923, 2244 V. Whitney, 782, 831 Reed, Executors of, v. Reed, 494 Reader v. Barr, 2359 V. Dargan, 7/. Purdy, 1357 7j. Sayre, 52, 205, 1208, 1210, 1264, 1300, 1302, 1322, 1323, 1326. 1335 V. Sheai-man, 533 Reel V. Elder, 773 Reelmau v. Sanders. 2073 Rees V. Chicago, 2206 V. Livingston, 1665, 1690 V. Waters, 664 Reese v. Waters, 659, 673, 750 Reeve v. Attorney-General, 1605, 1659 V. Bird, 1 173 Reeves v. Baker, 1627 7!. Dougherty, 1615 V. Hayes, 2036, 2106, 2109 V. Petty, 1404, 1405 V. Treasurer of Word Co., 2328 Reformed Dutch Church, Matter of, 36, 38, 40 Reformed Dutch Church v. Veeder, 1556, 1557 Reformed Pres. Church, 225 Re Fowler, 2327 Reformed Prot. Dutch Church v. Mott, 1557 Reg. V. Brown, 755 V. Howes, 1464 V. London, etc., 479 V. Spurrell, 1288 V. The Inhabitants of Chawton, 13 14 V. Westbrook, 2254 Regan v. Baldwin, iiSo V. Zeeb, 1408 Regina v. Chawton, 1334 V. Copp, 2235 Register v. Rowell, 287 Re Hamburger, 2260 Re Harvey's Estate, 1S36 Re Heller, 1892 Re Highway, 2325 Rehoboth v. Hunt, 1908 Re Hutchinson, 1824 Rehm v. Chadwick, 91 Reichert tj. McGlure, 2126 Reickhoff v. Brecht, 1620, 1622 Reid V. Atkinson, 1627, 1684 ZK Blackstone, 1629 V. Campbell, 917, 933 V. Fitch, 15S8 V. Gordon, 298 V. Hollinhead, 1242 V. Kirk, 61 V. Lamar, 1375, 1562 V. Mullins, 2164 V. Parsons, 1058, 1138 V. Shergold, 319, 1836 Reidy v. Small, 1789, 1790 Reiff V. Horst, 670, 713, 725, 726, 731, 741, 910 V. ReifE, 537 Reifsnyder v. Hunter, 348 Reigard v. McNeil, 2045 Reinhard v. Lantz, 402, 449, 450, 472 Reilly v. Mayer, 2164 V. Smith, i486 Reily v, Miami Ex. Co , 924 V. Ringland, 1267 Reimer v. American Contract Co., 1861 Reinbach v. Walter, 1419, 1499 Reinders v. Koppelman, 1S15, 2282 Reineman v. Robb, 2109 Reinicker v. Smith, 1924 Reinhard v. Bank of Kentucky, 1794 Reinhardt w. Bradshaw, 2309 Reinhart v. Collins, 2254 Reinskopf v. Rogge, 1033 Reise v. Enos, 2217, 221S, 2219 Reitenbaugh -v, Ludwick, 2039, 2085, 2087, 20SS, 2184 Reithman v. Brandenburg, 1133, 1316, 1331 Reitz v. Reitz, 1620, 1644, 1652 Reitzell v. Eckard, 762, S19 Relyea 7/. Beaver, 20, 58, 570 Peniick v. Butterfield, 1766 Remington v. Cardale, 1138 V. Millard, 2206 Remicker v. Smith, 1033 Re Middleton, 2327 Remsen v. Hay, 2168 Remson v. Conklin, 1060 Ren V. Buckelet, 1843 V. Bulkely, 1807, 1845 Renard v. Brown, 2073, 2137, 2172 Renaud t>. Daskam, 1052 V. Tourangeau, 499 Rendle, Doe d., 1040 Rendleman 7'. Rendleman, 919 Reney v. Bell, 2151 Renfe v. Harrison, 1016 Renfoe's Heirs v, Taylor, 746 Reniger v. Fagossa, 454 Renolds v. Baker, 2175 Renond v. Daskam, 1075, 1091 Renwick v. Ren-wick, 635, 636, 661, 662 Renzichausen v. Keyser, 1553, 1597 Renzie v. Penrose, 2349 Report of the Judges, 1548 Repp V. Repp, 2006 Repplier v. Buck. 1737 Requa v. City of Rochester, 2206 Reske v. Reske, 1385, 1500 Resor -v. Resor, 962 Respublica v. Campbell, 1263 Reuff V. Coleman, 270 Reuss V. Picksley, 1000 Reusselaer & S. R. Co., In re, 2237 Revalk z/. Kraemer, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1405, 1408, 1418, 1434, 1450, 1451, 1473, 1475, 1478, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1493, 1523 Revel V. Watkinson, 509 Reves V. Heme, 270 Revett z>. Harvey, 1735 Rex V. Bardwell, 1288 7'. Cheshum, 1273 V. Cheshunt, 1288, 1309 V. Collett, 1261, 1267, 1275, 1280 V. Edwards, 498 V. Fillongley, 1275, 1278 V. Greenhill, 1464 V. Inhabitants of Fillongley, 1256 V. Inhabitants of Herstmonceaux, 1339 V. Inhabitants of Northamptonshire, 2206 V. Jobling, 1275 V. Keletem, 1288 V. Kelstern, 1309 V. Longnor, 2352 V. Minister, 1288 7'. Pappineau, 57 V. Pedley, iigg V. Penson, 755 V. Rees, 1288 V. Shipdham, 1288 V. Snape, 1288 V. Stock, 128S V. Tynemouth, 1288 V. Wilson, 17S8 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXClll Reybold v. Dodd Admrs., 1889 Reybum v. Mitchell, 2136, 2137 Reynal, Ex parte, 126 i^eynald, Ex parte^ 120 Reynard v. Spence, 785 Keynolds z/. Baker, 2176 V. Collins, 525 V, Commi-s. of Stark Co., 2342 V. Commrs. State Co., S23 7'. Green, 2175 V. Lathrop, 2250, 2257 V. Lee, 487 V, McCurry, 731, 733 V. Monkton, 29, 30 ZK Orvis, 233 V. Pitt, 1 157, 1872 V. Pixley, 1426 V. Pool, 1245 V. Reynolds, 760, 762, 771, 774, 815, 820, S94, 921 7'. Robinson, 1648 V. Shuler, 115, 145, 146, 1224 V. Stark Co., 224, 974 V. Sumner, 1641, 1651 V. Vance, 728, 795, 913 V. Waller, 1033 V. Welch, 1624 7/. Williams, gS8 V. Wilmeth, 1894 7'. Wilson, ii'^^, 2159 Rhea v. Puryear, 1643 7'. Tucker, 1634, 1699 Rhet V. Rfason, 1633 Rhien v. Robbins, 216 Rhine v. Ellen, 1700 Rhinehart v. Stevenson, 2156 Rhines v. Baird, 2046 Rhoades v. Canfield, 2124 V. Davis, 960 V. Parker, 2032, 2033, 2064 •V. Rhoades, 1984 Rhodes v. Dutcher, 2162 V. Evans, 2150 V. McCormick, 64, 1386, 1416, 1420, 1431, M35. M37. 1442 V. Williams, 1432 Rhone v. Gale, 11 52 Rhyne v. Guevara, 1219 Ricard v. Sanderson, 2166 V. Williams, 210, 2242, 2290, 2292 Rice V. Adams, 138 V. Austin, 1240, 1241 V. Barnard, 1961, 1965 V. Bird, 2055 7'. Bixler, 2349 V. Boston & W. R. Co., 234 V. Burnett, 299, 1553, 1673, 1710, 1712 7'. Cribb, 2107 7'. Cunningham, 1623 V. Dewey, Z017, 2302 V. Hoffman, 588, 624, 632, 643, 670, 672, 1361, 1363, 1364 •u. Lumley, 771, 773, 919. 92O1 i35'5 V. Minnesota & N.W. R., Co., 2304, 2305, 2313 V. Nelson, 930 V. Osgood, 234 V. Parkman, 2329 V. Peet, 1032, 1033 V. Pelt, 2345 V. Rice, 2031, 2040, 2041, 2049, 2053, 2123 V. Rockfeller, 1677 V. Sandors, 2070 V. State, 595 Rich V. Basterfield, 1194, J199 V. Bolton, 1135, 1255, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1275, 1281, 1293, 1294, 1296, 1301, 1302, 1320, 1322, 1325, 2254 V. Cockell, 1562 V. Doane, 2044, 2052, 2053, 2084 V. Flanders, 671 13 Rich 7'. Hotchkiss, 1850 V. Keyser, 1310, 1338, 1350 V. Rich, 737 Richard v. Ayers, 520 V. Bent, 1094 V. Brehm, 595, 596, 752 V. Liford, 539 V. Richard, 795 V. Robson, 1687 V. Talbird, 928 Richards, In re. 125, 127 Richards v. Bester, 105 1 V. Chace, 1450, 1473, 1475, 1478 V. Chambers, 1836 V. Delbridge, 1588, 1638 V. Folsom, 207 V. Greene, 1402, 1451, 1475 •V. Griffitli, 2138 V. Holmes, 2163, 2164 V. Learning, 2007 V. Manson, 1957, 1963 V. Mayor of New York, 5 V. N. VV. Protestant Dutch Church, 41 •v. Randolph, 2365 V. Richards, 728 V. Rose, 2234, 2298 V. Sely, 11G2 V. Tavemer, 11 76 V. Torbet, 573, 576 V. Wardell, 1231 V. Whittle, 2263 V. Wordell, 1207 Richardson v. Baker, 2009 V, Blakemore, 2272 V, Borden, 104, 135, 136 V. Boright, 1031,2011 V. Bowman, 976 V. Buswell, 1515 •V. Cambridge, 2127, 2128, 2131 V. Clements, 2240 •u. Copeland, 96, 97, 133, 135, 138, 142, 14^ V. Field, 2071 V. Harvey, 1217 V. Hildreth, 2085 V. Hockenhull, 810 V. Inglesby, 1592 V. Jones, 1619, 1766, 1774, 1775 V. Langridge, 1135, 1136, 1252, 1255, 1261, 1262, 1265, 1268, 1281, 1302, 1320, 1321, 1325 V. Merrill, 1972 7/. Monson, 1906 V. Parrot, 2156 V. Pate, 103 1 V. Peterson, 2272 V. Spencer, 1621 V. Richardson, 1587, 1922 7/. Ridgely, 2008 V. Schultz, 959 V. Stodder, 297, 1672, 1673 V. Strong, 986, 1034 V. Studenham, 1009 V. Vermont Cent. R, Co., 2231, 2232, 2326 V. Wilson, 772 V. Woodbury, 2038, 2045 V. Wyatt, 824 V. Wyman, 792, 905 V. York, 478, 545 V. Young, 2095 Richart v. Richart, 948 Richbergz/. Bartley, 1156 Richmond v. Davis, 1037 v. Vassalborough, 1456 Rickard v. Robson, 1688 V. Talbird, 926 Rickards v. Rickards, 1088 Ricketts v. Montgomery, 1707, 1769 Riddell v. Grinnell, 823 Riddick v. Cohoon, 350 V. Walsh, 925 CXCIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Riddle v. Brown, 84 V. Cutter, 1609 V. Driver, 62, 89 V. Holl, 8go, 2059 V. Littlefield, 1014, 1204 Riddlesberger v. Mentzer, 888 Riddlesden v, Wiga, 755 Rideaut v. Paine, 202 Rider w. Kidder, 779, 1646, 1647 V. Kohler, 1226 V. Maul, 1977, 1978 V. Rider, 1634 V. Smith, 2208 Ridge V, Prathes, 2305 Rid^eley v. Crandall, 2343 V. Johnson, 1660, 1731 V. Stillwell, 981, 1135, 1 136, 1254, 1264, 12S4, 1303, 1307, 13 19, 1320, 1322, 1326, 1328, 1339 Ridgely's Exrs. v. Gartell, 2305 Ridgely v. McLaughlin, 463, 466 Ridgeway's Appeal, 1962 Ridgeway*s Minors, 1721 Ridgeway v. Hastings, 792, 905, 911, 915, 926, 927 V, McAlpine, 870, 872, 930, 931 V. Undei-wood, 75 V. Wharton, 1039 Ridgley v. Stillwell, 2255 Ridgwayz'. Parker, 337 Ridley v. McNairy. 2260, 2261 V. Ridley, 1033 Ridout V. Harris, 30 V. Paine, 314, 326 Rife V, Geyer, 254, 273, 500, 1605, 1607, 1655, 1656, 1673, 167s, 1694, 1695, 1736, 1737, 1742, 1748, 1763 P.igden v. Vallier, 1882, 1883, 1910, 1966, 1968 Rigdon V. Vallie, 1882 Rigge, Doe d., v. Bell, 1022, 1136, 1323 Riggin V. Love, 1919 Riggs V. American Tract Society, 2345 V. Armstrong, 2029 V. Sally, 403, 415, 418, 463, 464 Riggs, Doe d.j w. Bell, 1013, 1014 Right V. Darby, 1136, 1317 V. Sidebotham, 302, 331 V. Thomas, 1S07 Right & Bassett v. Thomas, 1040 Right d. Phillips v. Smith, 1607 Righter v. Forrester, 2120 Rigler v. Cloud, 611, 654, 655, 680, 682, 683, 685, 699, 1372 Rigney v. City of Chicago, 2 V. Lovejoy, 2105, 2107 Riker v. Durke, 641, 1981, 1982 Riley v. Bates, 855, S58 V. Glamorgan, 855, 858 V. Jordan, 1281 V. McCord, 2145 V. Million, 1217 V. Phelm, 1434 V. Riley, 1024, 1361 V. Simpson, 1197, 1198 Rimyeyer v. Morss, 62, 63 Rinehart v. Olwine, 1207, 1230, 1232, 1263 Ring 7/. Burt, 1410, 1473 V. Franklin, 1696 V. Hardwick, 322, 323 V. Huntington, 1033 V. McCoun, 1559 Ring's Exr. v. Woodruff, 2089 Ringgold V. Barley, 1455 V. Ringgold, 1608, 1617, 1618, 1669, 1708, 1715, 1719, 1725, 1734, 1,-35, »757. '773 Ringo 1), Binus, 1585 V. Wotidruff, 2296, 2297 Rinkin v. Rinkin, 74 Ripley v. Davis, 1246 .-. Luigart, 955 ■ii. Paige, 104, 107 V. Seligman, 77 Ripley w. Waterworth, 787 V. Wentworth, 528, 825 •V. Whittman, 1126 V. Wightman, 1179, 2269 Ripperdon v. Cozine, 2007 Rippetoe v. Dwyer, 2155 Rippon V. Norton, 247, 253 Rippy V. Gaunt, 1034 Risely v. Ryle, 1290 Rising V. Stannard, 1026, 1252, 1253, 1266, 1270, 1293, 1296, 1305, 1350, 1352, 1356, 1967 Risk V. Hoffman, 2150 Ritchie v. Eichelberger, 2i£o V. McDuffie, 2068 V. Putman, 741 Ritger^/. Parker, 2156, 2201, 2211, 2244 Rittenhouse v. Leverring, S65 Ritter's Appeal, 1791 Ritter v. Phillips, 2071 Rivard v. Gisenhof, 292 Rivers v. Friff, 315 Rives V, Dudley, 224, 1778 V, Rives, 510 Rivetts V. Brown, 1343 Rix V. Smith, 1782 Rizer?/. Berry, 1364 Roab V. Beaver, 251 Roach V. Davidson, 737 V, Peterson, 1178 V. Wadham, 1820 V, White, 651, 657 Roads V. Symmes, 2304, 2305 Roanws v. Archer, 247 Roath V. Driscoll, 572, 2227, 2230, 2233 Robb V. McBride, 1459 Robbins v. Butler, 1707, 1769 V. Eaton, 201 1 V. Eckler, 2192 V. Love, 2349 V. McDonald, 1425 V. Mount, 1054, 1066, 1199 V. Oldham, 51 V. Robbins, 777, 885, 1824 Robb's Appeal, 1623 Robbs V. Ankeny, 465 Robert z/. Coco, 15 10 V. Ristine, 1154 V, West, 1361 Roberts' Will, In matter of, 1456 Roberts v. Baker, 82 V. Barker, 1263 V. Brinker, 315 V. Cone, 970 V. Cooper, 1836 V. Crayer, 725 V. Dauphin Dep. Bank, 133, 138 V. Davey, 1058, 113S V. Dixwell, 654, 684, 685, 697, 1693 V. Fleming, 2163, 2185 V. Forsythe, 281, 284 V. Geis, 1107, 1123 V. Grubb, 1338 V. Haines, 94 w. Jack, 2271 V. Jackson, 692, 1163, 1164, 1580 V. Jackson, ex d. Webb, 1047 7'. Karr, 2206 V, Mansfieldj 2094, 2095, 2106, 2175 V. McCarty, 1963, 1964 V. McCord, 2222 V. McGraw, 1904 •v. McMahan, 2045 V. Richards, 2045 V. Roberts. 237 7.'. Shryer, 890 V. Spicer, 1371 V. Stanton, 1840 7>. Sulherlin, 1994, 2000 V. Taylor, 1732 V. Tennell, 996, 1013, 1323 V. Unger, 2303 V. Welch, 2094, 2146 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxev Roberts v. Whiting, 486, 541, 634, 635, 636, 637 ^-Wiggin, 829, 985,986, 1030, 1031,2011 Roberts, Den ex d., v. Forsyth, 286, 531 Roberts, Doe d. v. Polgrean, 1360, 1361 Robertson v. Baker, 786' T'. Bullion, 74, 16G0 7'. Campbell, 2043 V. Corset, 106, 123, 142 I'. Fraser, 1883 2'. McAfee, 2359 I'. Meadors, 543 V. Movvell, 265 %'. Norris, 1364, 1365 V. Robertson, 1588, 1648 T'. State, 596 V. Stevens. 606, 615, 693, 1577, 167S, 1679 V. Stark, 2027 V. St. John, 1037 V. Sublett, 1795 V. Van Cleave, 2073, 2074, 2170, 2171 7'. Walker, 2^30 V. Western M. & F. Ins. C, 1766 Robertson, Doe d., v. Gardiner, 1320 Robertson's Admr. v. Paul, 1497 Robeson v. Pittenger, 2223, 2224 Robie v. Chapman, 682,684 V. Smith, 1274, 1293, 1294, 1334 Robinett v. Preston. 1967 Robinson's Case, 1398 Robinson v. Baily, 1215 v. Bates, 745, 783, 792, 793, 810, 905, 907, 911, 914 V. Bland, 2339 7'. Bliss, 1623 7'. Brennan, 2022, 2024 V. Brock, 645 V. Buck, 658, 913 V. Campbell, 720, 1516 ?/. Codman, 598, 611, 679, 680,684. ^89, 763. 788, 798, 815, S32, 1576, 157S, 1579 V. Cross, 2132 V. Cropsey, 2042 V. Dart's Exrs., 1375 V. Deering, 997, 1127, 1167, 1171, 12S6, 1293, 1304 V. Doulass, 21 r V. Douthit, 2301 V. Dusgale, 1814 V. Dusgate, 317 V. Grey, 300, 1605, 1606, 1672, 1673, 1709 V. Eagle, 1024, 1919, 1932, 1941, 1950, 1952 V. Kzzell, 2020 V. Fairfield, 2346 V. Farrelly, 2050 V. Gee, 51 V. Hardcastle, 1828, 1830, 183S V. Harman, logi, 1245 V. Hathaway, 1214 V. Hoit, 1131, 1144, ii45j "46, 1 147, 1212, 1214, 1216, i2ig v. Hook, 1782 V. Lakeman, 630 V. Leavitt, 2097,2131, 2178 V. Lehman, 2257, 2272 7'. L'Engke, iioo V. Litton, 231, 575. 2188 7'. Mauldin, 1703, 2018, 2020 V. McDonald, 1988 V. Miller, 516, 744, 781,819,828,831, 834, 847,856, 861, 1133 V. Moon, 905 V. Perry, itii, 1118 V. Phillips, 2298 V. Rapelye, 1625, 1794 V. Reynolds, 2346 V. Robinson, 553, 650, 225';;,, 2260, 22G1 V. Russell, 2o8i, 2187 V. Ryan, 2151 V. Sampson, 2134 v. Smith, 1630 V. .Swearingham, 1447, 1456 V. Swell, 208, 210 Robinson v. Swope, 2327 V. Thrailkill, 2240, 2241 V Townsend, 777, 819 V. Urquhart, 2134, 2138 V. Webb, 1194 V, Weeks, 103 1 V. Wheelright, 251, 257 V. Wiley, 1483, 1514, 1515 V. Williams, 2030, 2271 V Willoughby. 2039 V. Wilson, 1519 V. Wright, 122 Robinson, Doe d., v. Dobell, 1310 Robion v. Walker, 1427, 1428, 1430 Robson V. Flight, 1031 V. Lindrum, 141 1 Roby 7'. Handers, 746, S67, 873, 931 7'. Phelon, 647 Roby, Doe d., v, Maisley, 1295, 1350 Roche V. Famsworth, 2151 Rochford v. Hackman, 249, 253, 274, 485, 501, 1677 Rock 7>. Hart, 1725 Rockford Ids. Co. v. Nelson, 2113 Rockhill 7'. bpraggs, 2349 Rockingham v, Penrice, 497 Rochon V. Levcatt, 600, 601, 605, 629, 643, 645, 655.657) 663, 1372 Rockland v. Morrill, 522 Rockman v. Alwood, 2045 Rockwell 7'. Bradley, 199/ V. Hobby, 2003, 2112 V. Hubbell's Admrs., 1502, 1516, 1518, 1570 V. Humphrey. 2044 7>. Morgan, 494, 496, 561, Sir, 844, 848 V. Rockwell, 794 7'. Servant, 2094 Roco V. Green, 1399 Roddy's Appeal, 2137 Roddy V. Cox, 1246, 1912 7>. Elam, 2151 Rodgers v. Bonner, 50 V. J-ones, 2151 71. Wallace, 1819 Rodman v. Hedden, 2141 Rodney v. Shankland, 1672 Rodriguez v. Heffernan, 1756 Rodwell V. Phillips, 53, 54 Roe 7'. Baldwere, 446 V. Blackett, 302 7'. Davis, 416 V. Farrers, 489 V. Grew, 422 V. Griffith, 830 ■V. Hodgeson, 1021, 1022 z>. Jeffrey, 322. 418 V. Jerome, 1700 V. Lees, 1275, 1281, 1302, 1320, 1326, 133S V. Pattison, 2 V. Popham, 1538 V. Reade, 1742 V. Rees, 1264 Roe d. Brune v. Prideaux, 1838 Roe d. Durant v. Roe, 13 11 Roe d. Evans v. Davis, 444 Roe d. Jordan v. Ward, 1264, 1325 Roe ex d., v. Lees, 1325 Roe ex d. Hunt v. Galliers, 257, 274 Roe ex d. Hunter v. Galliers, 257, 274 Roe ex d. Peter v. Pay, 339 Roe ex d. West v. Davis, 1060 Roe, Lessee of Posey, v. Budd, 469 Roff iv. Duane, 998, 1017, 1042 V. Johnson, 141 1, 1483, 1514 Roffey V. Bent, 501 V. Henderson, 145. 1186 Rogan V. Walker, 237, iSs-^, 2048, 2050, 2169 Rogers 7'. American Board, 271 V. Benson, 1952 7'. Boyntpn, J159 V. Brooks, 33, 1369 CXCVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Rogers v. Brown, 123 V. Buchard, 2365 V. Colt, 1576 V. Crow, log, iii, 117, 120, 121, 132, 134, i35» 136, i37t 138, 139 V. Danforth, 26S V. De Forest, 2129 V. Eagle Fire lus. Co., 237, 2316, 231S, 2319, 2320 V. Gillinger, 96, 2186 V. Goodman, 2191 V. Grazebrook, 2079 V. Greenbush, 671 V. Grider, 1024, 1729, 1920, 1935, i94i» 1950, 2320 V. Herroii, 2171 V. Hillhouse, 2322, 2348 V. Hinton, 1815 V. Holyoke, 2152 V. Humphreys, 2065 V. Jones, 196, 2igi V. Joyce, 210 V. Law, 267 V. Ludlow, 1374, 1672, 1673 V. Madden, 2295 V. McCauley, 1652 V. Meyers, 2073, 2169 V. Moore, 108, 516,744, 1142 V. Murray, 1653 V. Prattville Mfg Co., 132 V. Ragland, 1388 V. Renshaw- 1450, 1475, 1478 V. Rogers, 325, 1580 V. Sebastian, 1857 V. Sinsheimer, 2236 V. Smith, 137s, 1376, 1674 V. Snow, 1014, 1 154 z^ Swain, 2223 V. Taylor, 93 V. Trader Ins. Co., 2133 V. Walker, 986 V. Waller, 114S, 1214, 1348 Vm Wiggs, 1290 w. Woody, 903 Rogers, Doe d., v. Coote, 1039 V. Pullen, 1258, 1294 Rogers Locomotive, etc , Works z>. Kelly, 1655 Rohrabacher v. Ware, 135 Rohrbach v, Germania Fire Ins. Do., 631, 1912 Rolfe V. Gregory, 1761, 1784 V. Harris, 1157, 1871 Roll V. Smalley, 2148 Rollins V. Columbia Fire Ins. Co., 240, 21 15 V. Forbes, 2157, 2167 V. O'Farrel, 1455 •V. Moody, 297 V. Riley, 1S49. 1854,2314, 2315 Rjolph V. Crouch, 1190 Rolt V. Lord Somerville, 569 Romilly v. James, 322 Rona V. Meier, 259, 264, 499, 1814 Rondall v. Dulf, 2073 Rood V. New York & E. R. Co., 2360 V. Willard, 976, 1017 Roodhouse v. Roodhouse, 1984 Roods 21. Symmes, 2291 Roof V. Stafford, 985, 1030, 1031 Rookerw. Benson, 808 Rooks V. Moore, 983, 1246 Roome v. Phillips, 315, 1752 Rooney v. Crary, 1157 V. Gillespie, 1294 Roop V. Rogers, 1964 Roose V. Hungate, 1334 Roose, Evans, hi re, v. Williams, 724 Roosevelt v. Fulton, 68" V. Hopkins, 1139 V. Roosevelt, 273 V. Thurman, 415, 447, 471 Root V. Bancroft, 2092 V. Brotherson, 369, 2058, 2339 V. Collins, 2155 Root V. McGrew, 1510 V. State, 2335 V. Stuyvesant, 1039, 1809, 1810 Roper t'. Halifax, 1845 V. McCook, 2oog Rose, Re, 2266 Rose V. Baker, 2107 Rcpley V. Prince, 2090 V. Bun, 2240 V. Clark, 596, 752, 759 V. Gill, 1023 V. Hayden, 1642, 1643, 1644 ». Hill, 315 V. Reynolds, 957 V. Sanderson, 1366 v. Swan, 2151 V. Wynn, 1245, 1246 Roseboom v. Mosher, 188, 1842 V. Roseboom, 345, 1895, 1904 1 V. Vechten, 205, 454, 459, 477, 478, 481, Rosecarrick v. Benton, 1996 Rosekrans v. White, 1984 Rosenblat v. Perkins, 1322, 1333 Roser v. Slade, 346 Rosevelt v. Fulton, 800 Rosewell v. Prior, 1199 Ross V. Adams, 2S4, 66g, 679, 1368 V. Barclay, 1609, 1729, 1787 V. Blair, 718 V. Boardman, 802 V. Butler, 19S V. Cobb, 1023 V. Drake, 316 V. Duval, 1516 V. Dysart, 1065, loSi, 1082, 225S V. Garrison, 1309, 1930 V. Gill, 1023 V. Gould, 211 V. Hannah, 1447 V. Heintzen, 2007 V. Henderson, 1962 V. Kennison, 2072 V. Norvel, 164S V. Norveli, 2175 V. Norville, 2046 V. Overton, 109S, 1099, 1175 V. Ross, 344, 66q, 662, 22S2, 2283, 2289 V. Schneider, 1306, 1319 V. Swaringer, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1238 V. Sweeney, 1440 V. Toms, 415, 447, 471 V, Tremain, 1864 V. Utter, 2148 V. Van Aulen, 1290 7j. Welch, 51 V. Whitson, 2005 V. Wilson, 785, 857, ?oi7 V. Worthington, 2038 Rosse V. Wainman, 83 Rosseel v, Jarvis, 1145 Rosseter v. Simmons. 2, 308 Rossiter v. Cossit, 783, 802 Rotch V. Morgan, 1768 Roth zi, Duane, 1043 V. Wells, 50 Rothchild v. Hudson, 2263 •v. Williamson, 969^ ^131, 1304, 1327, 1328, 133 1 Rotherham v. Greene, 2196 Rothwell V. Dewees, 15S5. 1643, 1738, 1990 Rounds V Delaware L. R, Co., 1 195 Rountree v. Dennard, 1398 V. Lane, 1976 ' ' V. Talbot, 479 Roupe V. Carradine, 1516 Rourke v. Coulton, 2069 Rouse's Case, 1346 Rouse V. Martin, 198 Roush V. Emerick, 2255 Routledge v. Dorrill, 1812, 1838 Rovelsky v. Brown, 1958 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CXCVU Rowan ». Lytle, ri6o, 1310, 1319, 1344, 134S, T350. 1355 V. Mercer, 2149 ;'. Riley, 2259 V. Sharp's Rifle Mfg. Co., 2018, 2019, 2020 7-. State, 2324 Rowan's Creditors v. Rowan's Heirs, 1747 Rowand v. Anderson, 143 Rowbotham z*. Pearce, 116S 7>. Wilson, 90, 93, 2213, 2233, 2240 Rowden z'. Malsier, 436 7'. Wallster, 435 Rowe 7'. Bradley, 794 V. Hamilton, 910, 956, 960 V. Johnson, 733, 736, 739, 870, 876 7'. Power, S49. 851 V. Table Mountain Water, 2167 7'. Williams, 1051, 1052 7'. Wood, 2185 Rowel V. Walley, 510, 518 Rowell V. Doyle, 71, 74 ■V. Jewett, 1854, 1872 V. Kline, 538 Rowen ?'. Kelsey, 83, 1016 V. Riley, 2252 Rowland 7>. Pendleton, 2271 V. Rowland, 794, 913 z>. Warren, 402 Rowlandson, Ex Parte, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1244 Rowlett z'. Grieve s Syndic, 2177 Rowley V. Adams, 434 Rowney?'. Rowney, 1368 RowtoQ r'. Rowton, 781 Royall's Admr. v. McKenzie, 1734 Roy V. tlarnett, 1557 V. Mcpherson, 1622 Royce v. tiuggenheim, 1054, 1127, 1128, ri66, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1x73, 1200 Royer v. Ake, 1067, 1099, 2262, 2263 Royster v. Royster, 761, 815, 870 Royston 71. Royston, 893, 1364, 1988, 1989 Rozelle 7'. Rhodes, 1428 Rozenthal v. Mayhugh, 902 Rozier v. Fagan, 2332 V. Johnson, 1982 Rubeck v. Gardner, 216 Rubey v. Barnett, 317, 319, 338 V. Barrett, 1815 Ruby V. Abyssinian Society of Portland, 2088 Ruch V. City of Rock Island, i86r, 1862 Ruckler v. Hiller, 21 Ruckman v. Astor, 2184 V. Cutwater, 81 V. Ruckman, 2100 Rucks V. Taylor, 2149 Rudd V. Golding, 1138, 1150 Rudolph v. Rudolph, 957 Rue V. Alter, 1515 Rue High, Appellant, 1456 Rueifsnyder 7/. Hunter, 249 Ruffier V. Wormack, 2044, 2054 Ruffii V. Cox, 801, 817 Ruffiier V. McLennan, 711 Ruggles z'. Barton, 2102, 2103 V. Clare, 1864 V. First Nat. Bank of Centreville, 47, 2159 7'. Lawson, 1016 7', Lesure, 2213 7'. Williams, 2046 Ruggles, Jackson ex d., v. Martin, 341 Riigely V. Robinson, 247, 253 Ruiz 71. Norton. 1698 Rumball v. Ball, 2142 Rumery v. McCullen, 1795 Rumfelt V. Clemens, 924 Rumford Inhabitants v. Wood, 1029 Rump 71. Gerkens, 1163 Rund^ll 7/. Lakey, 1094 Rundle z'. Allison, 695 V. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 69 Rundle v'. Pegram, 594, 596 Runey v. Edmands, 639, 1367 Rung V. Shoneberger, 2297 Runnels v. Runnels, 267 V. Webber, 1093 Runyan v. Coster's Lessee, 224, 225 V. Mesereau, 800, 1995, 2000, 2105, 2111, 2129 Ruohs z>. Kooke, 1480, 1482 Kupp. /« re, 1399 V. Eberly, 332, 536 7>. Orr, 1738 Ruppe V. Steinbach, 1921 Rush 7J. Davidson, 2335 7'. Gordon, 1390, 1392 v. Lewis, 1742, 2107, 2119, 2130 Rushin v. Shields, 2122 Rushmore v. Miller, 2166 Rusing V, Rusiug, 291 Russ V. Mebius, 1637 V. Morris, 2331 V. Perry, 729, 884, 1093 Russel's Appeal, 1790, 1801, 2120 Russell's Case. 982 Russell V. Allard, 1274 V. Allen, 1028, tii8, 2064, 2065, 2268 71. Annable, 1029, 1030 71. Austin, 803, 1580 7<. Beebe, 2307 V. iilake, 2088 V. Brown, 2125 7'. Clark's Exrs., 1622 v. Coffin, 2316 V. Darwin, 1009 7'. Davis, 2295, 2296, 2297 7'. Doty, 1017 7'. Elden, 337 V. Edwin's Administrator, 1020, 1212 71. Fabyan, 1127, 1144, 1148, 1167) 1171, 1213, 1285, 1297, 1309, 1317, 1318, 1346, 1347, 134S, 1350, 1353, 1355, 2258, 2268 V. Gee, 842, 844 V. Hammond, 1626 V. Harford, 2216 7'. Howard, 2136, 213S 7'. Jackson, 2218, 2220, 2222 71. Jarvis, 1147 V. Lee, 823 7'. Lennon, 1432 V. Lewis, 1579, 1595, 1706 7'. Lowth, 1510, 2309 7'. I\Iarks, 1899, 1900 7'. McCarthey, 1335, 1340 7/. Miller, 824 V. Mixer, 2130 V. Peyton, 1662, 1783 V, Pistor, 2069, 2070, 2112, 2166, 2178 7'. Ramsey, 2323 71. Randolph, 1512, 1513 71. Richards, 56, 63, 123 V. Rumsey, 904 z/. Russell, 811, 1229, 1798, 1808, 1809, 1905, 2002 V. Shenton, iig8 7/. Southard, 2031, 2037, 2043,2048,2049* 2052, 2055, 2089, 2169 V. State, 595 V. Switzer, 1591, 1592 V. Taylor, 727 zf. Temple, 44, 817 V. Titus, 1222 V. Waite. 2042 Russell, Jackson ex d., z*. Rowland, 1148, 1220, 1148 Rutgers v. Hunter, 1008, 1088, 1089 Ruth 7'. Overbrunner, 225, 1680 Rutherford ?'. Graham, 847 V. Green, 1751 71. Munce, 783, 926 V. Read, 744 V. Ruff, 1033 CXCVIU TABLE OF CASES. References are to i)ages. Rutherford v. Stamper, 2301 V. Stewart, 201S V. Williams, 2163 Ruterland v. Williams, 2163 Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 88 Rutledge v. Smith, 1590, 1796 Rutt V, Howell, 14SS Rutter -v. Small, 189S, igoo Ruttledge v. Whelan, 1158 Ryall If. Ryall, 1691, 1700 V. Stevens, 125 Ryan w. Adamson, 2114 z/. Brown, 68, 70 V. Carr, 2364 V. Doyle, 1777 V. Dox, 1611, 1614, 1619, 1620 V. Dunlap, 2106 XI. Freeman, 620 Ryckman v. Gillis, 92, 2237 Rycroft v. Christy, 1791 Ryder v. Flanders, 2302 V. Hulse, 653 V. Mansell, 1219 V, Ryder, 1464 V. Sissin, 1715 If. Thomas, 1193 Ryer, Re, 2327 Ryer v. Gass, 808, Sag Ryersoa z/. Eldred, 1160, 1213, 1222 •u. Quackenbush, 2251, 2267, 2269 Ryerss v. Farewell, 1279 Rylands v. Fletcher, 199 Ryras v. Ryras, 1883 s. Sactiaveral v. Dale, 442 Sachet v. Wheaton, 22, 23 Sacheverell v. Trogate, 2259 Sackett's Case. 1456 Sackett v. Giles, 661 V. Sackett, 149, 552, 1153 V. Twining, 88g Sacltville Westz*. Holmesdale, 1609 Saddler's Co. v, Badcock, 1077 Sadler's Appeal, 1777 Sadler z/. Hobbs, 1732, 1733 V. Langham, 2327, 2328 •V. Pratt, 1838 Safely v. Gilmore, 1248, 2255 Baffin's Case, 980 Safford v. Annis, 51, 52 V. Rantoul, 1588 V. SafEord, 712, 759, 762, 777, 781, 819, 820 Sagar v. Eckert, 493, 519, 520 V. Tupper, 2153, 2172 Sage V. Central R. Co., 2155 V. Sherman, 1671 V. Truslow, nor Sager w. Tupper, 2136 Sag^tary -v. Hide, 1626 Sagoharie, Jackson ex d., u. Dobbin, 1213 Sahler v. Signer, 215 Sailer 7'. Sailer, 1894 Sainet v. Duchamp, 2254 Sainsbury v. Matthews, 46, 49, 51, 52 Saint V. Pilley, 125, 142 St. John V. Benedict, 1538 V. Bumpstead, 2x51, 2154 V. Camp, 2027 ■V. Palmer, 1128, 1168, 1172 V. Quitsom, 12 19 V. Quitzow, 1212, 1220 V. St. John, 1034 V. Standring, 1247 St. Johnsbury & L. R. Co. -u. Willard, 61 St. Louis V. Kamie, 1202 ?'. Morton, 1029, 1213, 1221 St. Louis, J. M. & G. R. Co. v. Hecht, 198, 995. 1315* 1317 St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co. v. Green, 2304 St. Louis University v. McClune, 2296 V. Kemp, 1586 St. Mary's Church v. Miles, 59 V. Stockton, 1S72 St. Michael's Church v. Behrens, 116S St. Saviour's v. Smith, 1074, 1077 St. Victor's V. Daubert, 1241, 1242, 1243 Sainter v. Furguson, 1872 Salade v. James, 1234 Sale V. Crutchfield, 409, 416, 419, 469 V. Moore, 347, 162-7, ^^3*^) ^^S^i 1684 V. Saunders, 1367 Salem v. Edgerly, 2176 Salisbury v. Bigelow, 1791 V. Hale, 1131 V. Marshall, 1200 V. Shirley, 1026,2261, 2262 Salisbury, Earl of, v. Bennett, 271 Salle V. Primm, 2293 Sal lee z/. Chandler, 162 1 Salmer v. Forbes, 96 Salmon V. Bennett, 1623, 1625 V. Clagett, 515, 2080, 2081, 2187 V. Hoffman, 2004 V. Matthews, 11 76 V. Smith, 979 V, Stuyvesant, 1039 Salter's Case, 529 Salter v. Kidgley, 2361 Saltmarsh v. Beene, 1765, 1774 V. Smith, 718, 733, 735, 736, 739 Saltonstall v. Sanders, 1685 Salusbury v. Denton, 1685 Sames v. Payne, 885 Samllman v. Onions, 572 Sammes' Case, 1556, 1557 Sample v. Robb, 2303 V. Rowe, 2106 z'. Sample, ^17, 955 Sampson v. Bumside, 2238 %). Easterby, 1071, 1078 z<. Graham, 142 V. Grimes, 2250, 2258 V. Henry, 1356, 1357 V. Hoddinott, 2224, 2227, 2228, 2248 V. Shaeffer, 1140, 1296 V. Williamson, 1378, 1408, 1467, 1468, 1473, 1475. 147S, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1502, 1518 Samson v. Thorton, 2034 Sanborn v. Chamberlin, 1093 V. Kittridge, 1773 V. Morrill, 1247 V. Osgood, 2060 V. Rolinson, 2038 V. Woodman, 1870 Sandback v. Quigley, 870. Sanderlin v. Baxter, 2241 Sanders v. Cassady, 2100 V. Ellington, 82, 1205, 1207 V. Hooper, 2089, 2090 V. Hyatt, 415, 447, 471 V. Martin, 2235 V. Merryweather, 1058 V. Morrison, 1729 z/. Partridge, 1072. 1108,1115,1117, mg, 1 1 19, 1 143, 1156, 2262, 2265 V. Pope, 1157, 1158, 1872 V. Reed, 2186 V. Richards, 2159 V. Wilson, 2185 Sanderson v. Dobson, 202 V. Jackson, 998, 1043 V. Mayor, 1166 ■V. Price, 1998, 2078 Sandford v. Clarke, iigg V. Harvey, 1274, 1335, 1340, 1343 •u. Irby, 288, 299, 1594, 1711 V. Jackson, 916, 917, gi8, 934, 942, 955 V, Johnson, 1263^ ^274, 1281 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. cxcix Sandford v. McLean, 885, 867, 873, 886, 905, 930 Sandfoss v. Lones, 1643 Sandhill 7/. Franklin, 13 10 Sands v. Ale Brewing Co., I7t re, 2119 7K Church, 2112 V. Hughs, 1 1 12, 1148 V. Lynliam, 236, 279, 2347 V. Pfeiffer, 136, 137 Sandwith v. De Silver, 2262 Saner w. Bilton, 1083, 1153 Sanford v. Bulkley, 2147 V. Jackson, 944 V. Jarvey, 1340 7'. Lackland, 253 V. Non-is, 16^3 V, Turner, n6o San Francisco v. Canavan, 2212 z>. Fulde, 229S Sangamon & M. R. Co. v. Morgan Co., 98 Sanger v. Uptown, 1581 Sangster v. Love, 2103, 2106, 2111, 2140 Sangston v. Love, 2105 Sansom v. Harrell, 1464 Santell v. Armor, 1425 Sanxay v. Hunger, 2218 Sarabusw. Fenlon, 1388, 1390 Sargent f. Adams, 20 V. Ashe, 2260 V. Baldwin, 1792 7>. Ballard, 2214, 2226, 2240 V. Courier, 1230, 1231 V. Howe, 2]o6 V. Parson, 1894, 1967 V. Pierce, 32 V. Smith, 1074 V. Townes, 337, 557 V. Wilson, 1523 , Sarles v. Sarles, 545. 54^, 555. 557. 565. 5^6, 1141 Sarsfield 7/. Healy, 1251, 1261, 1275 Sarter v. Gordon, 1697 Satterfield v. John, 1662 Satterlee v. Matthewson, 1221 Sander's Lessee v. Morningstar, 449 Sauer z*. Meyer, it 56 Saul V. Creditors, 755 V. His Creditors, 1946 Saumerez v. Saumerez, 307 Saunders v. Edwards, 1609 z'. Evans, 1839 V. Frost, 2073, 2089,2090, 2173 V. Hanes, 287, 973 V. Harris, 1598 V. Leslie, 832 V. Musgrove, 1264, 1292 V. Newman, 2229, 2247 V. Saunders, 1887 V. Schmaelzie, 1663 V. Webber, 1667 Savage v. Bumham, 917 V. Crill, 910 V. Dovley, 2062 zf. Foster, 2147 V. Hall, 728, 806, 809, 810, 2097, 2103, 2131 V. Holyoke, 201 1 V. Mason, 1063, 1972 V. O'Neil, 646 V. Savage, igS/, 1982 Savery v. King, 76 Savile v. Blacket, 1847 V. Scarburough, 60 Saville's Case, 442 Saville v. Saville, 511 Savings Bank 7/. Allen, 2332 V. Ayres, 1454, i495. 149^ V. Rates, 2332 V. Freese, 2t48 V. Grewe, 2099 Sawter 7/. Kendall, 734 Sawyer's Appeal, 1647 Sawyer v. Adams, 2119, 2121 Sawyer v. Davis, 4 V. Dozier, 339 V. Hanson, 2331 V. Hoag, 15S1 V. Kendall, 2299, 2357 2>. Lyon, 2026 V. Skowhegan, 1707 V. Twiss, 78, 79, 103, 106, 184 V. Wall, 683 V. Zachary, 1023 Saxton V. Hitchcock, 2044 V. Mitchell, 311 Say V. Barwick, 1034 V. Stoddard, 1278, 1281, 1293, 1297 Say-and-Seal v. Jones, 1709 Saye v. Jones, 1797 Sayers v. Hoskinson, 812 7/. Wall, 678, 682, 699, 1372 Saylor v. Kocher, 310 V. Paine, 1637 Saylors v. Saylors, 1600, 1601 Sayre v. Hughs, 1647 V. Townsends, 1634, 1646, 1651 V. Weil, 1588, 1669 V. Wisner, 671 Scales T'. Maude, 1587 Scammon v. Campbell, 841, 853 Scanlan v. Geddes, 2021 V. Porter, 321 V. Turner, 903 V. Wright, 215, 492, 503, 1657, 2014 Scantlin v. Allison, 1894 Scarborough v. Bormaii, 1373 z'. Smith, 1894 V. Stinson, 2090 V, Watkins, 647, 895 Scarry v. Eldrich,207i Schadt V, Heppe, 1521 Schaefer v. Reilly, 2109 Schaeffer v Beldsmeier, 1520 V. Weed, 891 Schaick ex d. Jackson v. Davis, 1150 Schall V. Williams' Valley R Co., 2300 Scharfenburg w. Bishop, 2018 Schearff 7/. Dodge, 2131 Schee v. Wiseman, 974, 975 Scheerer v. Dickson, 1202 V. Stanley, 1120 ScheferingT'. Huffman, 646 Scheible 7/. Bacho, 2059 Scheldt v. Belz, 2258 Scheifele v. Schmitz, 123 Scheiffelin v. Carpenter, 1168 Scheller v. Stein, 2122 Schellinger v. Blackerly, 982 Schenck i'. Conover, 2144, 2145 V. Ellingwood, 1840 V. O'Neil, 2059 7'. Schenck, 1734 Schenley's Appeal, 1226 Schenley v. Commonwealth, 971 Scheppi V. Gindele, 1066 Schermer's Appeal, 1509 Schermerhorn v. Buell, 988 V. Gouge, mo V. Miller, 611 V. Negus. 249, 259, 261, 262, 185S z'. Vanderheyden, 169S Schiack, Jackson ex d., v. Vincent, 488 SchiefEelin z*. Carpenter, 1159 V. Stewart, 1715, 1716. 1725 Schiffer v. Pruden, 707, 774. 883, 894, 919, 920, 921 Schile 7'. Rrokhahus, 2236 Schilling 7/. Holmes, 1128, ij68 Schindel v. Schindel, 5S8, 681, 682 Schinkei v. Hanewinkle, 2129 Schintz V. McManamy, 2341 Schlaeferw. Corson, 1622, 1760 Schlarb 7/. Holderbaum, 1520 Schlarfenburg v. Bishop, 1050 Schley v. Fryer. 2068 cc TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. S:hley V. Lyon, 1553, 1560, 1583 Schlemmer v. North, 135 Schluter v. Bowery Savings Bank, 165S, 1659 Schmidt, Estate of, 1446, 1449 V. Pettit, 109S, 1176 Schmit V. Auferty, 996 Schmitz V. Lauferty, 1323 Schmucker v. Libert, 2070 Schnelby v. Ragan, 2004 ZK Schnelby, 776, S06, 856 Schneider v. Botch, 229S V. Lord, 1322 V. Staihr, 1364, 1367, 1827 Schmitt V. Willis, 813 Schoch's Appeal, 661 Schoch's Estate, 662 Schoffen v. Laudauer, 1391,1392, 1420, 1433 Schofield V. Doscher, 2165 School Directors v. Carlile, 1554 V. Dunkelberger, 1744 School District v. Benson, 517, 2299 V. Lynch, 2299 School Trustees v. Hovey, 1479, 1506 Schoonmaker v. Stockton, 342 Schott V. Harvey, 976 Schouton v. Kilmer, 1503 Schreiber v. Creed, 2214 Schribarz*. Piatt, 1485 Sihriverz*. Meyer, 313, 328, 330>33i. 33z» 333 334 V. Meyer, 306 V. Teller. 2154 !-'chroeder w. Gemeinder, 1052 Schuck V. Gerlanch, 2074 Schuessler v. Dudley, 1403 Schuff V. Ransom, 2345 Schuisler v. Amos, 1131, 1132 Schult V. Harvey, 1201 Schultz V. Moll, 661 Schumeier v. St. Paul & Pac. R. Co., 69 Schutt "v. Baker, 1247 V. Large, 2365 Schuyler.z/. Broughton, 1949 V. Hanna, 1520, 1521 V. Leggett, 996, 1013, 1321, 1322, 1323 V. Smith, 969, 1131, 1132, 1 134. 1 135, 1 136, 13157 1317, 1343. 1348 Schuyler, Jackson ex d., v. Corliss, 1056, 1105, 1113 Schuykill v, Dauphan R. Co., 1067 V, Schmoele, 1 129 Schuykill, etc., R. Co. v. Schmoele, 1082, 1167, 1127 Schuykill Co. v. Thobum, 2062 Schwartz's Estate, 102 1 Schwartz v. Kuhn, 2295 Schwarz v. Sears, 1999 Schweickhardt v. St. Louis, 1193 Schwoerer v. Boylston Market Assoc., 1069 Scituate v. Hanover, 1588, 1592 Scoggins V. State, 597 Scofflns v. Grandstaff, 2301 Scofield z^. Hopkins, 1500 Scorell V. Eoxall, 49, 52 Scott V. Alberry, 307 V. Avery, 1051 V. Bentel, 2-'4i V, Buchanan, 985, 986, 1031, 2052, 2073, 2343. 2344 V. Clinton, 98 c/. Deyer, 1379, 1444 V, Elkins, 2298 V. Featherston, 2177 V. Freeland, 1766, 1768, 1773, 2163 V. Gallagher, 1764 V. Gibbons, 247 V. Guernsey, 653, 1905 V. Hancock, 849, 860 V. Hawsman, 1162,2260 V. Henry, 2038, 2039 V. Howard, 731 V. Johnson, 985 Scott V. Key, 1633 r'. Levy, 1217, 1222 V, Liverpool, 1051 V. Logan, 315 T'. Lunt*s Admr., 1071 V. Lunts, 1004, 1 12 1 V. McFarland, 2039 •u. NicoU, 224S V. Perkins, 1806 V. Porcher, 1600 V. Purcell, 1773 V. Ramsey, 1234 V. Rand, 1662 V. Scott, 856, 865, 1098, 1164 V. Simmons, 1054, 1191, 1201, 1202 V. State, 1923 V. Stewart, 1754, 1755 V. Stipe, 1S50 V. Terry, 2288 V. Turner, 2105, 2106 V. Tyler, 271, 1S5S V. Umbarger, 1620 V, Ward, 712 Vy Ware, 2065, 2087, 2333 V. Webster, 811, 2081 V. Wharton, 218S 7'. Whipple, 2356 V. Willis, 1227 Scott's Exrs. V. Gorton's Exrs., 1766 Scovell V. Boxall, 537 Scovill V. Kennedy, 1979 Scoville V. Canfield, 2056 Scranton 7r. Stewart, 103 1 Screven v. Gregorie, 2207 Scribnerz'. Hockok, 2177 Scrimshire, 753 Scriver v. Smith, 22 11 Scrivner v. Dietz, 1791 Scruggs V. Blair, 824, 1964 V. Murray, 485 Scudder v. Trenton, 2325, 232S Scuffield V. Brown, 220S Scull V. Beatly, 1519, 1522 ff. Reeves, 1600, 1729, 1786, 1794, 1795 Scully V. Delany, 1733 V. Murray, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329 Scurfield v. Howes, 314, 1608, 1733, 1735 Scuylerz*. Leggett, 2274 Seabrook v. King, 2207 V. Meyer, 1174, 2268 Seabury, Doe ex d., v. Stewart, 1289 Seagrave v. Seagrave, 773, 921, 939, 965 Seager z'. McCabe, 813 Seagood v. Meale, 1087 Ssale V. Soto, 1986 Sealer z/. Kittner, 11 13 Seals 7'. Cashien, iggg Seamans v. Carter, 1504, 1505, 1517 Searcy v. Short, 1398 Seargent %k Steinberger, 1729 Searle v. Chapman, 1494 V. Price, 883 zi. Whipperman, 2151 Searles v. Jacksonville R. Co., 2136 Sears v. City of Boston, 1455. 1456 V. Cunningdam, 305, 1684, 1S24 V. Dewing, 2254 V. Dixon, 1450, 1475, 1478, 2042, 2043, 2053 V. Hanks, 1394, 1415, 1481 V. Hind, 1250 V. Hyer, 641 V. Munson, 1893 V. Russel, 323, 1796 V. Sears, 1407 V, Sellew, 1894 V. Smith, 997, 1131, 1315, 1316 V. Stinton, 1046 Seaton v. Davis, 1344 V. Jamison, 874 V. Marshall, 1397 V. Son, 1426 Reierenccs are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCl Seavcr v. Durant, 20S7, 2iSs w, Phelps, 9S7, 1032 V. Spiuk. 2120 Seawell z'. Greenway, 1724, 1725, 1728 Sebastian v. Ford's Heirs, 1290 V. Johnson, 2159 Sebring 7'. Mei-sereau, 1984 Second Congregational Church of North Bridge- water 7'. Waring, 33 Second Nat. Bank s-. The O. E. Merrill Co., 1316 Second Pres. Church 7>. Disbrow, 336 Second Reformed Pres. Churchz'. Disbrow, 317. 319. 320, 346, 1593, 1632 Secor, Ke, 2266 Secor z'. Pestana, 1309, 1319, 1340 Secrest t: McKenna, 760 7'. Pruner, 2052, 2053 Sedgewick 7'. Cleveland, 2132 V. Laflin, 2S1, 283, 284, 285, 531 See z'. Deer, 292, 203 Seeger v. Pettit, 1224 Seeger's Exrs. z'. Seeger, 1754 Seekonk v. Rehoboth, 1005 Seekright z/. Moore, 826 Seelers z'. Seelers, 202 Seely's Appeal, 897 Seely v. Seely, 411, 415 Seelye, Jaykson ex d., v. Morse, 1356, 1635 Seem v. McLees, 1336, 1339, 1340 Seers z'. Hind, 1057, 1249 7'. Russell, 324 Segee v, Perley, 54 Segond 7'. Garland, 1373, 1562 Seibert z-. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 2141 V. Wise, 423 Seibold zi. Christman, 1640 Seichrist's Appeal, 1643 Seidenpnrger v. Spear, 2212, 2213 Seider z'. Seider, 836, 1406 Seiders z'. Giles, igSr Seifert v. City of Brooklyn, 5 Seimon z'. Schurck, 1652 Selby V. Alston, 1580, 2096 V. Greaves, 2250 7'. Stanley, 2005 Selden v. Seymour, 2349 z/. Vermilya, 1597 z>. Vermilyea, 1S08, 1809 Seldon's Appeal, 1592, i6gi Self's Admr. v. Tune, 534 Selkrig v. Davies, 358, 719, 2289 Sellars v. Davis, 883 Selleck v. Selleck, 953 Sellers v. Lester, 2020 V. Sellers, 203 z'. Stalcup, 2048, Selliman z/. Cummins, 904 Sellman v. Bowman, 757, 758, 866, 870, 873,875, g3o V. Sellman, 234 Sellon 7K Reed, i4;«2 Sellwood V. Gray, 2147 Selwin v. Selwin, 1572 Semmons v. McKay, 694 Semmes v. United States, 1253 Semple v. Burd, 2126 V. Lee, 2151 Senhouse v. Christian, 2220 Senter v. Mitchell, 2020 Sentill V. Roberson, 679, 680, 699 V. Robinson, 6S9 Sentney v. Overton. 1723 Sergeant ?'. Ingersoll, 1777 7'. Ruble, 2133 V. Steinberger, 1876, 1881, 1SS2, 1920, 1036, 1969 Session v. Donnelly, 531 Seton V. Shade, 2050, 2168 Settegast v Schrimpf, 216, 223 Settembre ?'. Putnam, 1622 Seuzeneau v. Saloy, 2059 Severance v. Griffith, 2082, 2103 Sevier v. Greenway, 2049 7'. McWhorter, 1795 Sewall w. Cargill, 1556 V. Lee, 726, 750, 883 7'. Proctor, S27 V. Roberts, 292, 1791, 1792, 1798 z'. Sewall, 662, 774 Seward z'. Huntington, 2152 z'. Jackson, 1626, 2349 Sewell V. Angerstein, 105, 121 7'. Denning, 1637 7'. Holland, 1923 V. HoUian, 1923 z>. Howard, 403 Sexton 7/. Chicago Storage Co., 1122 ZK Wheaton, 64S, 1626 Seymour's Case, 370, 372, 390, 456, 457, 827, 884, 8S5 Seymour z>. Canandaigua, N. F. & R. Co., 2017, 2018 V. Carli, 2298 T'. Darrow, 2027, 202S 7'. Delaucey, 1033, 1697,1758 V. Davis. 2074, 2172 7' Freer, 94, icgo, 1663", i6go, 17S2 v. Harvey, 1847 z'. Lewis, 2244 V McDonald, 1184 V. McKinstiy, 2109 V. Sanders, 2309 Seys V. Price, 953 S. F. & O. R. Co. ». Oaklandj 1029 Shaak's Estate, In re, 755 Shackleford v. Bailey, 2295 z: Hall, 270, 1858 z>. Handley, 1696 Shaeffer 7^ Chambers, 1087,2185 V. Mill, 778 V. Ward, 814 V. Weed, 744, 745 Shafcr z/. Wilson, 2233 Shaffer v. Anderson's Admrs., 8gi w. Enew, 22S3 V. Richardson's Admr.j 887, 892, 894 T*. Shaffer, 947 V. Sutton, 1299, 1303, 1327 z>. Weed, 922, 923 Shaftesbury v. Duchess of Marlborough, 1S32 Shafto zf. Butler, 1361 Shakespeare v. Alba, 996 Shall z'. Biscoe, 2004, 2007 Shallenberger v. Ashworth, 1364 Shaller w. Brand, 911 Shankland's Appeal, 273, 299, 500, 1583, 1606, 1675. 1741, 1748 Shanks 7', Blackiston, 415 V. Klein, 1964 Shannon z'. Bradstreet, 1039, 1040 T. Burr, iiii, 1123 V. Frost, 34 V. Marselis. 2180 7'. Marsellis, 2154 Shapland v. Smith, 300, 1605, 1797 Shapleighe^. Pillsbury, 1556, 1557, 1569 Share v. Anderson , 947 Sharkey v. McDermott, 2282 V. Sharkey, 2039 Sharman v. Eakin, 2309 7'. Jackson, 292 Sharon 7', Davidson, igoi Sharon Iron Co. v. Erie, 1835 7'. City of Ene, 1869 Sharp 7'. Bailey, 1477, 1480 V. Barker, 2089 V. Fly, 1789 7'. Goodwin, 1622 7'. Johnson, 1515 r'. Orme, 2354 7/. Pettit, 443, 461, 875, 876, 885 z>. St. Sauveur, 750 V. Sharp, 308,2333 ecu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Sharp V. Speir, 1515, 2335 V. Thompson, 416 Sharpe z/. Cosserat, 1677 V. Gerry, 2027 V. Kelley, 1146, 1221, 1297, 1309 V. Orme, 2364 Sharpless v. Borough of Westchester, 651 z/. Welsh, 1585 z/. West, 633, 670 Sharpley v. Jones, 717, 731, 737 Sharpsteen v. Tilton, iSio Shatterwhite v. Rosser, 2297 Shattock V. Shattock, 1821, 1S25, 1826 Shattuck V. Gregg, 807, S35, 847, 851, 852, 862 V. Lovejoy, 1058, 1138 Shaver v. Shaver, 1920 Shaw V. Eeebe, 2303 V. Beers, 515 V. Beery, 1887 V. Beveridge, 30, 31, 32, 38, 83 V. Bill, 2018 V. Bowman, 1208 V. Boyd, 898, 954, 957 %'. Bunny, 2086,2155 V. Burton, 2082 V. Famsworth, 1000 V, Foster, 2002 V. Gould, 719 V. Hearsey, 1887, 1919, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1938, 1952, 1967, 1969 V. Hoadley, 2150, 2164 V. Hussey, 344 V. Lawless, 347, 1627, 1632 V. Lenke, loi, 121, 135, 139 V. Norfolk, 2040, 2041 7'. Norfolk Co. R.. 2146 V. Partridge, 1024, 1033, X360, 1363, 1364, 1368, 1369, 2264 V. Read, 1647 w. Russ, gog V. Simmers, 1040 z/. Spencer, 1622, 1637, 1714, 1745, 1746, 1749. 1765 V. Stenton, 1166 V. Thompson, 820 11. Walbridge, 216S V. Wallace, 983, 1287 V. Weigh, 422, 1553, 1594 V. White, S23, 843, 844 V. Wright, 288, 289, 1594 Shaw, Jackson ex d., ?'. Spear, 1160 Shawhan v. Lang, 2258 V. Long, 2251, 2257 Shaw-mut Bank v. Boston, 1176 Shawmutt Nat. Bank v. Boston, 66, 1015 Shaw's Trust, Re, 1038 Shea's Appeal, 899 Shea V. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 1195 7'. Tucker, 1651 Sheaf e z/. Gushing, 534, 536 V. Gerry, 2027. 2029 z'. O'Neil, 215,673, 732, 864, 865 Shearer z/. Corbin, 2336 v. Loftin, 1794 V. Ranger, 729, 1092, 1093, 1094 V. Shearer, 694, 1961, 1964, ^965 Shebert v. Winston, 1440. ^975 Sheckell v. Hopkins, 2051, 2055, 2168 Shee V. Hale, 253, 260, 272, 273, 1677 Sheecomb v. Hawkins, 1040 Sheedy z'. Reach, 1683 Sheehy v. Miles, 1520. 1521, 1950 Sheen, Re, Thomas, Ex parte, 105, 108, no Sheerer v. Stanley, 2259 Sheet's Estate, 500, 1675 Sheets r/. Peabody, 1722 w. Selden, 1005, 1083, 1106, 3157, 1177, 1182, 2256 Sheetz's Will, 416, 424 Sheffield z'. Lovering, 2286 Sheible v. Bacho, 2056 Sheildsz/. Atkins, 1783 Shells zi. Stark, 1969 Sheirburn v. Cordove, 15 16 Shelby v. Hearne, 1074 V. Shelby, 1782, 1874 Sheldo V. Smith, 1795 Sheldon v. Bird, 2170 V. Bliss, 916, 935, 956 V. Davey, 1269, 1271, 1293, 1319 •u. Edwards, no, 125, 810, 2098 V. Estate of Rice, 1715 V. Hoffnagle, 2136 V. Hopkins, 920 V. School District, u8o V- Vail, 35 V. Wildman, 1782 V. Wright, 2158 Shell V. Duncan, Sgr, 1453 V. Martin, 2331 Shelley's Appeal, 1509 Shelley's Case, 302, 359, 423, 439, 440, 441, 460, 498, 881, 1539, 1693, 1694 Shelley, Doe d., v. Edlin, 300, 1595, 1605 Shelley z/. Shelley, 60, 1609 Shelton v. Alcox, 2276 V. Armor, 2363 V. Bliss, 933 7/. Carroll, 729, 847, 861 V. Codman, 975, 1072, 1074, 1120, 1125 7). Doe, 1212 V. Eslava, 1144 V. Lewis, 1622 V. Marshall, 2056 V. Orr, 1423, 1424 V. Shelton, 1590 Shepard v. Brewer, 1464, 1466 V. Briggs, 1 1 85 V. Elliot, 2088 V. Martin, 1213 V. Merrill, 1172 V. Philbrick, 47,49 V. Pybus, 1200 V. Rinks, 1978 V. Shepard, 322, 323, 646, 648, 2141 •V. Spaulding, 115, 130, 145, 146, 1164, 1 187 V. Taylor, 2096 V. Wood, 2335 Shepardson z*. Rowland, 191 1, 1924 Sheperd z'. Adams, 2153 V. Burkhalter, 2123 V. Cassiday, 1455, 1457, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1465* 1495 V. Cummins, 996 V. May, 2069, 2072 7/. Nottidge, 1629 V. White, 1497, 1649 Shephardz* Little, 1538 Shepherd z*. Commissioners of Ross Co., 1662 V. McEvers, 1599, iJoo, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1671, 1672, 1729, 1760, 1764, 1777, 1786, 1787, 1795, iSoo V. Shepherd, 1697 V. White, 1647 V. Young, 1897 Shepley v. Cowan, 2307, 2308 Sheppard v. Pratt, 2094 V. Warden, 903 Sheppard, Doe d,, v, Allen, 1104 Shepperd v. Cummins, 1322 Sheratz v. Nicodemus, 2007 Sherbunie v. Jones, 1267, 1284 Sherensbury's Case, 2340 Sheridan v. Welsh, 2091, 2101 Sherill v. Sherill, 2302 Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 1144, 1150 V, Dodge, 297, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1605, 1753, 2315 V. Dutch, 2251, 2257, 2258 V. Kane, 1897 V. Willett, 45, 821 V. Williams, 1014, loSr, 1127, 1166, 1168 Sherratt v, Bentley, 178S References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CClll Sherred z'. Cisco, 2235. 2237 Sherrid z*. Southwick, 1471, 1472, 1524 Sherrill v. Hopkins, 2056 Sherrod v. Calleghan, 646 Sheny v. Picken, 51. 52 Sherwin v. Lasher, 2254, 2256 Sherwood v. Andrews, 1791 V. Barlow, 2322 V. Dunbar, 2132 V. Harral, 1102 V. Phillips, 1322 V. Reade, 1515, 1755 V. Seaman, 1197 v. Vanderburgh, 764, 800, 870 Shiblaz/. Ely, 1781 Shiel zf. McNitt, 1872 Shields v. Atkins, 373, 17S2 V. Batts, 717, 836 zf. Hunt, 838 V. Keys, 667 V. Kinbrough, 1087 z'. Loyear, 688, 1219 V. Lozear, 1996, 1998, 2078, 2(29, 2131 V. Netherland, 486 7/. Shinn, V. Smith, 1752 V. Stark, 1876 Shields' Heirs v. Batts, 735, 741 Shiells z;. Blackburne, 1183 Shilling «». Holmes, loSi Shillingford zf. Good, 2259 Shillito v. PuUen, 1026 Shimer w. Hammond, 810, 2136 7'. Mann, 396 Shindelbeck v. Moon, 1085, 1198 Shina v. Budd, 2137 V. Fredericks, 2096, 2130 7'. Holmes, 307, 309, 312, 326 V. Shinn, 1932, 1944, 2150 Shintz V. Laufeity, 995 Shipbrook v. Hinchinbroek, 1732, 1733 Shipe 7'. Renass, 1481 Shipley v. Fifty Assoc, 1202 Shipman v. Beers, 2223 z/. Horton, 1031 V. Mitchell, 1274, 1315. 1317, 1319, 1330 Shippen's Appeal, 519, 520, 636, 746 Shipper v. Stokes, 2016 Shippey z/. Derrison, 998, 1043 Shipwerth z/. Sreed, 1025 Shipwith's Exrs. v. Cunningham, 1601 Shirack v. Shirack. 1465 Shirey v. Postelthwaite, 353 Shirkey 7/. Hanna, 2147 Shirley v. Bunch, 2033 Zf. Burch, 2060 V. Jones, 2148 V. Shirley, 1361, 1371, 1561, 2008 V. Sugar Refining Co., 2006 V. Terne, 2354 Shirras v. Craig, 2022, 2023, 2027, 2028, 2030, 2036, 2123 Shirtz V. Shirtz, 791, 823, 841, 842, 845, 876 Shitz V. Diffenbach, 2004 Shivers v. Goar, 267 Shober v. Houser. 1703 Shoemaker v. Huffnagle, 416, 433 V. Simpson, 113, ir6 V. Smith, 1613, 1651 V. Walker, 679, 703, 781, 815 ShoUenberRer v. Brinton, 2253 V. Filbert, 2251 Shone v. Larsen, 2366 Shonk V. Brown, 251, 257, 904, 1371, 1561 Shoofstall z/. Powell, 4'4. 4f5. »8o6 Shook v. Shook, 1885 Shoplane v. Royderer. 1022 Shore, Doe d., v. Porter, 1135, 1136, 1254, 1270, 1299, 1301, 1308, 1334 Shores v. Carley, 604, 692, 693, 703 Shorey v. Farrell, 1270 Short V. Battle, 2012 Short 7'. McGruder, 1432 Short, Doe d., v. Prettymaii, 1984 Shortall v. Hinckley, 588, 632, 633, 634, 635, 641, 642, 643, 651, 1366 Shortz V. Unangst, 1730, 1085 Shote V. Tighe, 976 Shotwell V. Mott, 1659 V. Sedam's Heirs, 923, 924 V. Shotwell, 772 Shore v. Dow, 1918 V. Sarsen, 2123 Shotwell 77. Smith, 2067 Shouse V. Krusor, 2251, 2254, 2257, 2259 Shouton V. Kilmer, 1403 Shovelton v. Shovelton, 1629, 1633 Show V. Hussey, 536 V. Show, 491 Shrank v. Zubler, 2299 Shreve z'. Hankinson, 1036 Shrewsbury's Case, 570, 1277 Shrieker z'. Field, 2145 Shrieve v. Stokes, 2233 Shroder z>. Brenneman, 2220 Shropshire ?>. Bums, 2343 > V. Shepperd, 1244 Shroyer z'. Nicknell. 1929 Shrunk v. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 69 Shryock v. Waggoner, 1622, 1748 Shubert v. Stanley, 2055 Shufelt z'. Shufelt, 2083, 2111 Shulenberg 7*, Herriman, 1861 Shull V. Kennon, 1979, 1980 Shult V. Baker, 1153 Shultz V. Elliott, 1 149 V. Shultz, 323 7/ Sprain, 2249, 2251 Shumway v. Collins, 1050, 1058, 1073, 1115, "29, 1 174 Shury 7/. Piggott, 2208 Shute V. Grimes, 2077, 2084 V. Harder, 1579 Shutler's Case, 2204, 2352 Shutt V. Rambo, 346 Shuttleworth z/. Greaver, 918, 944 Shutz V. Desenberg, 2052 Sibley v. Hoar, 983 z>. Johnson, 2346 V. Williams, 706 Sicard v. Davies, 2338 Siceloff V. Redman's Admr., 118, 440 Side V. Hodley, 2241 Sidenberg 7/. Ely, 504, 2089 Sidle V. Maxwell, 2120 V. Waters, 1588 Sidmouth V. Sidmouth, 682, 1640, 1647 Sidney v. Sidney, 664, 939, 963, 965 7/. Stevenson, 2002 Siefke z/. Roch, 2264 Siemasen v. Bofer, 216 Siemon v. Schurck, 1622, 1962 Sientes v. Odier, 12 13 Siewert V. Hamel, 2165, 2167 Siglar z/. Van Riper, 19:7 Sigmund v. Howard Bank, 1079 V. Wilkins, 1067 Sigoumey v. Eaton, 1918 7'. Munn, 824, 825, 1777, 2359 V. Stockwell, 734 Silcock 7'. Farmer, 1141 Sill v. Worswjck, 368, 719, 2057, 2288 Sillard v. Robinson, 305 Sillers z/. Lester, 2018, 2019 Silloway v. Brown, 1403, 1405, 1425, i449i i503» 1903, 1907, 1998 Silsbury v. McCoon, 62 Silsby 7/. Allen, 1264, 1300, 1301, 1312, 1322, 1325, 1326, 1336.1337 V. Bullock, 635, 638, 650, 651, 657 Silva z>. Cambell, 1139 Silver Lake Bank v. North, 1541, 2014, 2090, 2136 Silvernail v. Cole, 55 CCIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Silverstein v. Stem, 2260 Silvester v. Ralston, 1022 V. Wilson, 288, 1594, 1605, 1712 Silvester ex d. Law v. Wilson, 299, 300 Silvey's Estate, 918, 943 Silvey v. Summer, 1164 Siinar &. Canady, 708, 709, 712, 716, 725, 726, 727* 797. 821, 879, §93, 922 Simers v. Saltus, 47, 1125, 1172 Simmons 7'. Brown, 1247 V. Gooding, 675 zt. Hervey, 2340 V. Johnson, 1504 V. Lyles, 837, 884 V. McElwain, 646, 648 V. Norton, 543, 544, 559, 1227 V. Palles, 1793 V. Sines, 2217 Simon v. Walker, 1425 Simonds %>. Powers, 1517 V. Simonds, 259, 261, 263, 1682, 1862 z'. Turner, 1108 Simons v. Farren, 1103 Simonton's Estate, 2354 Simonton v. Conielius, 1932, 1933, 1940 V. Gray, 783, 802, 808, 810, 1580, 2097 V. Houston, 938, 948, 949 Simpkin v. Ashurst, 1354 Simpkins v. Rogers, 1267, 1268, 1280 Simpson v. Ammons, 1969, 1971 V. Downing, 2299 z/. Feltz, 1242, 1243 V. Gutteridge, 1021, 1888 V. Kelso, 75 V. Leach, 787 V. McAllister, 832 V. Mundee, 2005, 2364 ». Pearson, 1944, 2301 V. Robert, 2025 zi. Savings Bank, 1518 V. Seavey, 1897 V. Simpson. 436 Sims V. Dame, 1923 V. Huntphries, 1344 V. Hundley, 2160 V. Irvine, 2305 7'. McClure, 1034 ZI. Ray, 1830 V. Rickett, 645 V. Thompson, 1425 z). Walsham, 1430 Simson v. Brown, 2072 Sinclair v. Armitage, 2015 V, Jackson, 1038, 1040. 1731, 2300 V. "Slawson, 2365 Singer Manfg. Co. v. Sayre, 994, 1315, 1316, 1317 Singleton v. Bremar, 236, 2S2 z). Huff, 1411 V. Scott, 1667, 1755, 1758 V. Singleton, 835, 836, 849,860 Singleton's Heirs z). Singleton's Exrs,, 737, 859 Singstack z'. Harding, 1707, 1766, 1769 Sinnet v. Herbert, 1872 Sinnickson 7'. Johnson, 198 Sip zt. Lawback. 856 Sir Ralph Bovy*s Case, 1626 Sisk v. Smilli, 801, 927 Sisson z/. Donnelly, 281,284, 286 V. Hibbard, 117, 141. 143 Sistare zi. Sistare, 750, 774 Siter V. M'Clanachan, 76, 2140 Sitliff V. Forgey, 750 Sitzer. Jackson ex d., zi. Waltermire, 712 Skaggs V. Elkus, 1327, 1330 7'. Nelson, 2006 Skally V. Shute, 1166, 1168 Skeel V. Spraker, 520, 811,1580,2036,2123,2127, 2131 Slcidmore v. Ramline, 1034 Skillen v. Loyd, 346 Skillman z/. Temple, 2130 Skinner v. Beatty, 1491, 1497, 2157 V' Buck, 1999, 2076, 2146, 2151 V. Crawford, 2296 V. Dayton, 1870, 1871, 1872 z>. Harrison Township, 1657 z). Hendrick, 2047 V. Miller, 2047, 2052, 2168,2169 V, Reyni-ck, 1488 V. Wilder, 5G, 57 V. Young, 2169 Skipwith's Exrs. v. Cunningham, 1600 Skipworth v. Cunningham, 1789, 1791, 1794 Skrine v. Walker, 1633 Slater v, Breese, 2024 V. Dangerfield, 423 7/. Jepherson, 210 V. Nason, 216, 672, 673 V Rawson, 206, 601; 2297 Slatorz'. Brady, 1031 V. Trimble, 103 1 Slattery v. Wason, 1677, 3678 Slaughter v. Foust, 839 Slaymaker v. Gettysburg!! Bank, 43 Slayton v. Blount, 234 Sledge V. Reid, 1247 Slee 7/. Manhattan Co., 2016 Sleigh V. Strider, 411, 412 Sleight V. Read, 234 Slemmer v. Crampton, 479 Slevin v. Brown, 1553, 1797 Slice 7'. Derrick, 1976 Sloan V. Coolbaugh, 1523 V. Holcomb, 2061 V. Whitaker, 947 V. Whitman, 868 Sloane zt. McConahy, 1555 Slocum V. Catlin, 811 ZK Hooker, 2343 7'. Marshall, 1593 V. Seymour, 53,55 7'. Slocum, 434 Sloper V. Saunders, 1258 Slowey V. McMurray, 2054 Slowley V. McMurray, 2044, 2045 Slughter v. Foust, 2106 Small V. Clifford, 1882, 1912, 1914, 1968 V. Marwood, 1713, 1788 V. Nainie, 257 V. Proctor, 211, 831 Smalley v. Hickok, 2174 Smallmau zK Onions, 576 Smart v. AUegaert, 2268 V. Morton, 91, 92, 93, 2233, 2237 7/. Taylor, 756 V. Whaley, 755, 756, 769, 770 Smelting Co, v. Kemp, 2304 Smiles z>. Hastings, 2222 Smiley 7/. Fries, 2301 V. Van Winkle, 1122, 1159, 1160, 1164 V. Wright, 781, 885, 923,924 Smilie zi. Bifile, 75, 1723, 1784, 17S5 Smillie t/. Titus, 2060 Smith's Appeal, 414, 444, 788 Smith, Re^ 95, 1432 Smith zj. Ackerman, 729, 730, 1094 z). Acton, 1782, 1783 V. Adams, 781, 2230 V, Addleman, 7S2, 822, 841, 842, 844 V. Aiken, 1236 V. Allen, 14S1, 1956, 1962, 2012 V. Allt,_ii3r, 1135, 1317 V. Ankins, 1177 ZI. Ankrim, 1126, 1175, 2269 7'. Atkins, 1050 ZI. Ausboniie, igo6 V. Baldwin, 932 7'. Barrett, 1019, 1029 V. Bell, 302, 339, 345, 419, 1131, 1132, 1806 V. Benson, 56, 141 V. Berry, 306, 308, 309 V. Blaisdell, 1138, 1140, 1150 V. Bowen, 1548, 1592, 1808, 1809, 1810 References are to pages. Smith V. Brannan, iS6i V. Brannon, 1849 V, Brinker, 1108, 2262 V. Bryan, 51, 52, 55 V, Bunn, 1466 V. Bumham, 1623, 1634 V. Burtis, 209, 210, 211, 212, 1917, 2297 V. Calloway, 1781 V. Carney, 1094, 1095 ZK Carroll, 144 V. City of Rochester, 69, 70 v> Clark, 249, 1770, 2264 V. Clay, 872 •u. Clayton, 1205 V. Coe, 1278 zK Coffin, 307 ■'■ Collyer, 574, 577 t'. Colson, 2250 "'.Columbia Ins. Co., 2114, 2 118 I'. Colvin, 670, 679 V. Commonwealth, 135, 136 V. Cooke, 491 •V. Cooper, 516 V. Countryman, iiro V. Croom, 1456 V. Crosby, 2044 V. Cushing, 2303 V. Daniel. 552, 1759, 1764, 1777 V. Darby. 92, 93, 94 V. Day, 1040 ZK Death, 1844 V, De Russy, 2301 V. Deschavimes, 1425 V. Dinsmoor, 2138 V. Dinsmore, 2136 •V. Dodds, 974, 975 V. Doe, 1807 V. Dorr, 2283 V, Durell, 2132 V. Dyer, 1996, 2085, 2102, 2104 V, Eldridge, 125S V. Elliott, iig4 V. Emerson, 1964 V. Estell, 974 V. Eustis, 2182 V. Evans, 2352 7/. Fellows, 795 V. Floyd, 2191,2194,2250,2273,2287 V. Ford, 1592 V. Freeman 1000 V, Frost, 1620 V, Fulkinson, 338 V. Garland, 1791 V. Godfrey, 2056 •V. Goodwin, 2186 •u. Grant, 1253 V. Green, 2172 V. Hance, 498 V. Handy, 901,902,911 V. Harrington, 323, 1604, 1753 V. Harrison, 977, 1249,2262,2263,2264 V. Heiskell, 107 V. Hitchcock, 2100 -v. Hosmer, 2298 V. Houston, 1259,2271 V. Howell, 903 V. Hoyt, 2157 V. Hunt, 2363 V. Hurst, 2083 V. Jackson, Soi, 814, 818, 1963 V. Jewett, 541 V. Johns, 2077 V. Johnson. 46, 136,2084 V. Jordan, 2126 V. Kehr, 1481 V. Kelley, 800, 2074,2085,2100, 2128 V. Kenrick, 2227, 2231 V. King, 102 1, 1906 V. Kinkaid, 2271 V. Knight, 1924 V. Kniskem, gi6, 934. 955 V. Knowlton, 523, 1786 TABLE OF CASES. ccv Smith?'. Lavilts, 1794 V. Lewis, 2080,2091 V. Littlefield, 1,130, 1132, 1135, 1317, 1346, 1347, 1350 w. Low, 1023 V. Lynne, 1791 V. Malings, 2268 V. Mallone, 1467 V. Manlings, 1174 V. Mapleback, 2252 V. Marrable, 1055, 1168, 1200 V. Marc, 14S9, 1516 V. Matthews, 1589, 1592, 1692 V. Mayo, 103 1 V. Maxwell, 645 V. McCampbell, 1093 v. McCann, 1709, 171 1, 1750 V. McCarty, 765 V. McGregor, 61 V. Metcalf, 1553, 1709, 1797 V. Miller, 1047, 1479, 1506, 2198 V, Monmouth Ins. Co., 2115, 2116 V. Monmouth Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 240 V. Moore, 139, 253, 2080 V. Morehead, 660 7/. Morrow, 2298 V. Mundy, 1159, 1212 V. Neale, 1000 V. Newton, 2059, 2161 V. Niel, 1625 V. NIver, 1162 V. North, 1076 V. O'Hara, 223S V. Orton, 1746 V. Osborne, 316 V. Ostermeyer, 810 V. Otley, 1349 V, Pacard, 1518, 2157 V. Painter, 889, 890, 1773 V. Park, 1020 V. Parkhurst, 516 •V. Parks, 1871, 2078, 2079 V. Pattom, 1634, 1646, 1647,1648, 1651,1700 V. Paysenger, 924 XI. Pendergast, 1159 V. People's Bank, 2031, 2040 V. Pettee, 1248 V. Pollard, 2322 V. Porter, 2219 V. Poyas, 541 V. Price, 103, 104, 135 V. Pringle, 1 134 V. Provin, 2160 V. Putnam, 1056, 1057, 1105, H13 V, Quiggans, 1420, 1435, 1446 «*. Raleigh, 1168, 1174 V. Rice, 1234 V. Roberts, 2097 V. Rowe, 1274 V, Rowland, 2005 z>. Rumsey, 14S1 V. Sanger, 2152 V. Schiiver, 333 V Shackleford, 744 V. Sharpe, 549, 552, 575 V. Shaw, 717, 1253 V. Shay, 2171 V. Shepard, 497, 1171, 1220 V. Sheperd, 2065 V. Simons, 983, 985, 990, 991, looi, 1046 V. Sinclair, 2174 V. Smith, 300, 355, 469, 522, 712, 727, 731^ 752. 769, no, 772, 844, 84S, 855, S57, 1393, 1606, igo6, 2005, _ gi2, 933, 953, 1219, 1627, 1634, 1651, 1718,. 1883, 1933. 1947. 1956, 197s. 1979) 2007, 2104, 2134, 2164, 2229 . Spencer, 6go, 692 . Stanley, 804, 829 . Starr, 75, 317, 31S, 329, 1673, 1674 .Stewart, 1268, 1271, 1272, 1276, 1283, 1291, 2271 CCVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Smith V. Stigleman, 1128 V. Strahan, 778,779, 1613, 1615, 1639, 1640, 1646, 1647, 1651, 1658, 1703 •u. Stuart, i6go V. Surman, 54, 55 V. Tankersley, 2254 V. Taylor, 1027, 2063 V. Thomas, 2252, 2259 V. Thompson, 2012, 2013 V. Thurston, 1166 V. Townsend. 1703, 1727, 1735, 1746, 1772 V. Tritt, 49) 5I) 52 V. Truslow, 2o6g, 2070 V. Union Ins. Co., 2116 V. United Stales, 3 V. Van Gilder, 1518 V. Van Ostrand, 344 V. Vincent, 2128 V. Waggoner, 141, 143 V. Watson, 1242 V, Wheeler, i5'f4, 1788 V. Whitebeck, 1060, 1154 V. Widlake, 1266, 131S, 1838 V. Wiggin, 221 1 V. Wilkinson, 1691 V. Williams, 2301 V, Wooding, 1289 V. Wright, 1241 V. Zaner, 1657 Smith ex d. Teller v. Burtis, 489, 518 Smith d. Teller v. Lorillard, 517 Smith's Heirs, v. Smith, 849 V. Stewart, 1213, 1268, 1272 Smith, Jackson ex d., v. Adams, 672, 673, 1657 Smith's Lessee v. Hunt, 1713 Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 133 Smithdeal v. Smith, 203 Smitheal v. Gray, 1639, 1640, 1641, 1700, 1764 Smithers v. Hooper, 76 Smithurst v. Edmunds, 2018 Smithwick v. Ellison, 80, 82, 1263 V. Jordan, 269, 1560 Smoot V. Lecatt, 600, 664 V. Strauss, 2273 Smyles v. Hastings, 2241, 2247 Smyrna B. L. A. v. Worden, 1028 Smyth V. Carlisle, 959 V. Tankersley, 1233, 1234 ' V. Mayor of New York, 96 V. Naugle, 1008 Smythe v. I^orth, 11 14 Snape v. Thourton, 1807 Snavely v. Pickle, 2046, 2176 V. Wagner, 485, 1773 Snedecor v. Freeman, 1425 Snedeker v. Warring, 103, 107, 113, 116, 133, 137- 1923 Sneeld w. Ewing, 757, 758 Sneed v. Atherton, 1990 •V. Hooper, i6g8 Sneider v. Heidelberger, 1510 Snelgrave v. Snelgrave, 942 Suell V. Atlantic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2331 V. Kirby, 759 V. Young, 287 Snelling v. Utterback, 1648, 1649, 1699, 1701 Snoddy v. Kreutch, 2297 Snodgrass v. Reynolds, 1245 V, Ricketz, 2302, 2305 Snook V. Snook, 949 V. Sutton, 1022 Snow V. Cutler, 1040 •v. Orleans, 2021 V. Parsons, 2225 V. Perkins, 80 V. Stevens, 783 V. Tifft, 829 Snowden v. Craig, 132 ». Dunlavey, 1980, 1984 V. McKinney, 1286 ^nowdon v. Dales, 253 z<. Pales, 1576 Snowdon v, Wilas, 72 Snowhill V. Snowhill, 1810 Snyder v. Kunkleman, 2273 V. Riley, 1120, 2258, 2259 V. Snyder, 783, 803, 810, 940, 2097 V. Stafford, 21533 2154 V. Vaux, 62 V. Wolfovd, 1643 Sobey v. Brisbee, 997 Society v. Clendinen, 1837 V. Haight, 983 Society for Propagation of the Gospel v. Hart- land, 297, 1548 V. New Haven, 1554 Sock V. Suba. 1984 Sockett V. Wray, 1836 Soggins 71. Heard, 1643, 1781 Soliier v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 2329, 2333 V. Trinity Church, 31, 39,40, 41, 514, 2333 Solary v. Hewlett, 1443, 1444 Solme v. Bullock, 2197 Solomon v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, 39 V. Fitzgerald, 1964, 1965 Soltau V. Soltau, 682, 683 Somers, Den ex d., v. Peirson, 412, 415 V Pumphrey, 986, 987, 2345 Somerset v. Fogwell, 982, 2198 Somes V. Skinner, 2080 Sommers v. Johnson, 1517 Soper V. Guernsey, 2032, 2064 Sorrels v. Self, 2309 Souders v. Van Sickles, 2065 Soulard v. United States, 2, 3 Soule V. Abbe, 2027 V. Barlow, 2297 V. Soule, 465 South V. Thomas, 1723 South Bridge Savings Bank v. Stevens Tool Co., 106 South Cong. Meeting-House v. Hilton, looi Soutliall V. Leadbetter, 1102 Southard v. Central R. Co., 1849, 1855, 1861, 1867, 1972 V. Dorriugton, 2089 Southerin v. Mendum, 492, 1998, 2074, 2105, 2107, 21S2 South Sciluate Savings Bank v. Ross, 1754 Southsett V. Stowell, 1569 South-Side Town M. & M. Co. -v. Rhodes, 16S9 Southworth v. Smith, 1922 V. Southworth, 1912 V. Van Pelt, 799 Souverby v. Arden, 1791 South Wales R. Co. v. Wythe, 1083 Southwestern R. Co. v. Thomason, 42 Soutter V. McRea, 1999 Souverbye v. Arden, 2354 Sowers 7'. Vie, 1225 Spaulding t;. Shalmer, 1749 Spangler v. Stauler, 225, 711, 784, 785, 78S, 821, „ . . |f3, 969, 974 Spachius, Den ex d., v. Spachius, 450, 470 Sparahawk v. Cloon, 253, 273 Sparger?/. Compton, 1513 Sparhawk v. Bagg, 1998, 2064 z'. Broome, 11 14 V. Sparhawk, 1662 Sparkman v. Gove, 2068, 2069 Sparks v. State Bank, 138, 2124, 2126 Sparrow v. Hoven, 2297 V. Kingman, 764, 870 V. Pond, 53 V. Shaw, 422 Spaulding v. Brent, 2349 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 568 V. Crane, 1443 V. Hallenbeck. 266 V. Warren, 229S V. Woodward, 1972, 1973 Speake v. Kinard, 890 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCVll Spear v. Cutter, 1152 V. Fuller, 1058, 1143, 1150 V. Fulton, 1138 V. Lowell, 1034 V. Orendorf, 13 16 V, Spear, 1715 Speckles v. Sax, 1084, 1086 Speidel z'.Hetirici, 1782 Speight, Ke, 1664 7>. Gaunt, 1713, 1714, 1720, 1724, 1728 Speiglemeyer v. Crawford, 2136 Speir V. Opier, 1032 Spelman v. Aldrich. 1428 Spence v. Spence, 300, i6o6,'i6g3 z>. Steadman, 1027, 2046,2254 Spencer's Case, 982, 1070, 1071, 1074, 1075, ^o77) 107S, 2250 Spencer v. Austin, 1908 V. Ayrault, 811, 1580 V. Carr, 1016 V. Chase, 370, 373 V. Chick, 412 V. Clarke, 436 V, Geissman, 1304, 1502 V. Godwin, 1624 V. Harford, 2157 V. Kunkle, 983 z'. Lapsley, 2304 V. Lewis, 1360 V. Roper, 523 V. Spencer, 658, 795, 1734 V. Tobey. 1282 V. Waterman, 2085 V, Weston, 867, 875, 930 Spencer, Doe d., v. Clark, 436 Spendolmes v. Bun'itt, loig Spenesly v. Valentine, 2217 Sperling V. Rockfort, 1373 Sperry v. Pond, 259 V. Sperry, 1061, 1155, 1861, 1862, 1867 Sperry's Lessee v. Pond, 265, 266, 269, 478, 481, 1852 Spessard v. Rohrer, 289 Spicer V. Spicer, 769, 770 Spicer, Doe d.. v. Lea, 1308 Spielmann v. Kliest. 2036 Spies V. Chicago & E. L R. Co., 2019 Spillerb v. SpiUer, 2x51 Spindle v. Shreve, 1747, 1748 Spindler v. Atkinson, 1768, 1771, 1773 Spinning v. Spinning, 837 Splits V. Wells, 1975 Spooner v. Brewster, 33, 60 V. Lovejoy, 302, 305, 308, 335, 341, 346, 348, 1593, 1632, 1684 V. Spooner, 1159 Sprague z'. Barnard, 1684 z'. Duel, 2345 V. Dull, 1034 V. Martin, 2142 zi. Quinn, 1275, 1279, 1297 V. Spargue, 297, 1607 V. Woods, 1537, 153S Spraker v. Cook, 2249 V. Van Alstyne, 340, 342 Sprange v. Bamhard, 347, 1627, 1632 Sprecker r.-. Wakeley, 1518 Spriggs V. Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 2046, 2048, 2049 Spring V. Hyde Park, 2260 Springer v. Arundel, 329, 336, 1673 V. Berry, 1539, 1647, 1658 V. Phillips, 2262 V. Shields, 730 V. Young, igoo ■Springfield, City of, v. Norris, 2227 Springle v. Shields, 729, 841 Sprin^stein v. Schermerhom, 517 Spruill 71. Moore, 322 Snurgeon v. Collier, 2o.i;i Spurgin z'. Adamson, 2074, 2 171 Spurr V. Taimble, 522, 523 Squire v. Harder, 1612, 1635, 1700 Squires v. Clark, 1898, 1912 V. Huff, 1254, 1256, 1263, 1303, 1319, 1337 Stacey v. Elph, 1660, 1788 V. Rice, 1602 Stackable v. Stackable's Estate, 1891 Stackbergir v. Mosteller, 997, 1013 Stacky v. Keefe, 1920, ig4J Stackpole ?'. Arnold, 2047 V. Beaumont, 270, 1848 7'. Curtis, 2246 Stacy V. Vermont Central R. Co., 1292 Stadden v. Hazzard, 999 Staepler v. Knerr, 1945 Stafford, hi re, 1719 V. Buckley, 24, 44, 435, 819 zf. Coyney, 2206 V. Stafford, 2359 7'. Van Rensselaer, 2005, 2125 Stagg V. Eureka Tanning & Currying Co., 1216, 1217 Stahl V. Stahl, 819 Stahle 7'. Spohn, 1217 Stainback v. Geddy, 2073, 2171 Staines v. Morris, 2263, 2265 Stainforth v Fox, looi Stainsbury v. Matthews, 50 Stall 7/. Cincinnati, 1749 V. Wilbur, 821 Stambaugh 7/. Yeats, 47 Stamford Bank v. Benedict, 2136 Stamper zi. Griffin, 1259 Stamps. Den ex d., v. Irwine, 1231 Stanard v. Eldridge, 2000 Stanberry v. Sillon, 2336 Stancer v. Roe, 1158 Stancliffe v. Hardwick, 1246 Standard Bank v. Stokes, 2233 Stauden v. Chrismas, 112a V. Standen, 1823 Standish v. Dow, 2148 Stanfield V. Hobson, 2095 St. Andrew's Church's Appeal, 1076 Stanford v. Andrews, 2027 V. Hurlestone, 571 7*. Kempton, 2103 Stanhope v. Suplee, 106 Stanley v. Beatty, 2147, 2148 V. Brunswick Hotel Corp., 998, 1017, 1019, 1043 V. Colt, 257, 1594, 1607, 1705, 1712, 1739, 1752, 1850 V. Gilmer, 1579 V. Greenwood, 1379, 1387, 1395, 143 1, 1445 V. Leonard, 300 V. Stanley, ig, 315 V. Stocks, 2155, 2181 z'.Towgood, logS 7'. Valentine, 2134 Stansbury, Jackson ex. d., v. Farmer, 1356 Stansell v. Roberts, 1492, 2121 Stansfield v. Habergbam, 231, 1572, 1638 V. Mayor of Portsmouth, 1158 Stanton v. Hall, 1372, 1677 V. King, 1578 V. Lewis, 2 Stantons v. Thompson, 8ro, 2096, 2098, 2130 Stanwood v. Clampitt, 2177 V. Dunning, 765 V. Stanwood, 647 Staple V. Heyden, 2222 Staples, Ex parte, 492 z>. Anderson, mo, ri68, 1200 V. Brown, 635, 638, 650 V. Emery, 79, 106 Stapley zf. Cowan, 2306 Starbird v. Barrens, 1247 Starin 7'. Mayor of New York, 1029 Stark V. Barnett, 1967 V, Cheatham, 2083 V. Hunton, gi6,934 CCVUl TABLE OF CASES. References are to ijages. Stark V. McGown,2325 V. Mercer, 2158,2165 V. Stark, 2288 Starke z/ Etheridge, 2060 V. Harrison, 1364 v. Starke, 1782 Starkeweather v. Martin, 2363 Starks v Traydor 223 Starling v. Blair, 2024 V. Parker. 42 Starr z*. Ellis, 811, 2og6 V. Jackson, 1252 V. Moulton, 1739 V. Pease, 632, 663, 769, 893 V. Peck, 751 Starry v. Starry, 862 State z/. Atherton, 2206 V. Atwood, 671 V. Auditor, 671 V Bank of Maryland, 1554, 2342 V. V. Batesm,225 V. Beakmo, 215, 216 V, Bonham,9c), 125 V. Boston, C. & M. R. Co., 215, 216, 224 V. Brown, 2136 V. Burwell, 1237 V. Canatoo National Intelligencer, 87 V. Carver, 2206 V. Cincinnati, 1754 ■V. Collector of Bordentown, 1456 V. Crowell, 233 V. Curtis, 1287, 1288 V. Danieils, 1456 V. Diveling, 1422, 1424 v. Davis, 2068 V. Dawson, 2325 V. Doherty, 2324 V. Elliott, 115, 145, 1268 V. Ferguson, 671 V. Finn, 1397 V Foy, 1247 V. Franklin Falls Co., 2325 V. Fry, 893 V. Geddis, 1524 V. Glen, 6g V. Goodwill, 5 V. Graton, 2335 V. Green, 2243 V. Guilford, 1732, 1734 V. Harden, 2203 V. Hayes, 1288 f. Heron, 2336 V. Hodgskin, 597 V. Horn, 2243 V. Huntly, 706 V. Jewell, 1234 V. Johnson, 878 V. Jones, 1237 V. Killian, 220 V, Lash, 1515 V. Lawson, 2083 V. Martin, 2262, 2263, 2264 V. McCauley, 1036, 2263 V. McKay, 1766 V. McM. & M. R, Co., 1036 V. McMinnville, 1268 V. McReynolds, 2192 V. Meagher, 1713, i7i4t 1724, 172S V. Metz, 976 V. Moore, 706, 1350 V. Murphy, 594, 596, 751 V. Nanert, 2061 V. Newark, 2332 V. North Carolina, R. & D. R. Co., 1019 V. Noyes, 4 V. Page, gSi, 990, loio, 1048 V. Patterson, 752 V. Peck, 501 V. Poor, 50 V. Pottemeyer, 68, 70,71, 72 V. Preble, 221 v. Romer, 1514 State V. Rood, 595, $^-j, 752 V. Rose, 2272 V. Samuel, 595, 752 V. Simons, 2324 V. Slater, 1399 V. Smith, 2ig V. Spencer, 1399, 1452 V. Staten, 2324 V. Stewart, 1309 V. Sutcliffe, 706 71. Sutton, 1036 V. Tachanatah, 595 V. Titus, 2155 V. Traphagen, 498 V. Trask, 1568 V. Trinity Church, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35 V. Warren, 1659 V. Winkley, 596 V. Whaley, 596 V. Wheeler, 198 V. White, 597 V. Whitener, 976 V. Williams, 596 V, Wilson, 596 V. Wincroft, 725 V. Worthington, 596 V. Yopp, 5, 199 State Bank v. Cox, 1746 V, Hinton, 926, 928 V. McCoy, 1033 V. Smith, 1599 State Bank of Elizabeth v. Ayers, 2071 State of Georgia w. Canatoo National Intelli- gencer, 86 State Savings Bank w. Kircheval, 132, 133 V. Kirchenall, 2080 State ex rel. Barton County v. Kansas City, F. & G. R. Co., 233, 522, 523 State ex rel, Spencer v. Moore, 522, 523 State Treasurer z'. SummerviUe & E. R. Co., 98 Stauffer v. Morgan, 1947 V. Eaton, 1291 Stayton v. Morris, 2250 St. Clair v. Morris, 782, 925, 928 V. Williams, 860, 966, 1072, 1115 Steacy v. Rice, 1561, 1597, 1655, 1694, 1695, 1711 Stead V. Nelson, 1035, 1562, 2012 V, Newdigate, 76 V. Piatt, 1360 Steadman v. Gassett, 1354 V. Pulling, 678 Steams v. Earnett, 2349 V. Godfrey, 1144 V- Harris, 1861 V, James, 2242 V. Palmer, 290, 1796 V. Quincy Mut. Ins. Co., 2118 V. Sampson, 1355, 1356 V. Swift, 822, 841, 844, 901 Stears v. Hollenbeck, 2091 Stebbins v. Hall, 2068, 2150 V. Peeler, 1503 V, Watson, 2060 Stedman v. Korlune, 717, 835 V. Gassett, 1319, 1350 V. Mcintosh, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1256, 1257, 1271, 1299, 1307, 1310, 1313, 1315, 1319, 1324, 1334, 1335, 1337, 1342 Steed V. Hinson, 2250 z/. Preece, 95 Steedman v. Weeks, 1982 Steel V. Cook, 407, 433 V. Frick, looi, 1234, 1237 V. Galleatly, 930 V. La Framboise, 8rg V. Sioux Valley Bank, 910 V. Steel, 1371, 1998, 2037, 2040, 2042, 2043 Steele, In re, 506 Steele, Matter of, 541 Steele v. Babcock, 1708 V. Boone, 2125 References are to pages. l-ABLE OF CASES. CCIX Steele v. Carroll, 7S1, 7S1 V. Fabre, 46 e>. Johnson, 2299 V. Lowry, 1610 c. Marks, 2353 c. Magee> 893 w. Mill*, 2254. e/. Taylor, 2305 0. Thompson, 302, 309, 35s Steen v. Wardsworth, 1219 Steeple -a. Downing, 2336 Steere ■?. Childs, 2153, 2154 p. Steers, 1590, 1592, i6i2> 1635^ 1655, 1690, 1691, 1696, 1700, 1701 Steers z». City of Brooklyn, 2294 Stees V. Kran/,, 1 15S Sleffens v, Karl, 1*71, 1327, 1329, 1330, 13^3^ '335. i337> »339> »340 Steffy c. Carpenter, S2i6 ff. Steffy, SS2. 990 Stegallw. StegaU> 773, 887J 894, ^921 Steifel V. Mitz, 2268 Sieigerjf. Hillan, 875 Stein z: Burden^ 2292 c. Jones, 2263, 2264. E/. Hanck, 2223 Steinbach v. Relief F, Ins. Co*, &330 Steinhausef 3. Kuhn, 1144 Steininger -p. Williams, 997, 2273 Steinle v. Bell, 2158 Steinman v. Ewing, 1375, 1376 Steinway v. Steinway> 1586 Stell's Appeal, 1732 Stetz V, Shreck. 1952, 1954 Stemple v. Hentiinghouser^ 216, 774 Stephen's Appeal, 2005 Stephen v. Beald, 1775 V. Beall, 2150 Stephens -p. Bridges, 1165 e*. Cornell, 2070 w. Gibbes, 947 •V. Hume, 603, 605, 612 v. James, 1677 V. Martin, 199 z>. Reynolds, 1004. Haines, 2266 V'. Hancock, 2259 f. Osborne, 1510 7/. Thompson, 1646 Sterlien v. Daley, 2365 Sterling v. Baldwin, 54, 56, 2020 J'. Penlington, 607, 191 1 V. Warden, 1351, 1356. 2212 Stem z^. Florence Sewing Machine Co., 11 17, 2264 Sterne, Ex parte, 490 Stemfels v. Clark, 1247 Sterrett v. Wright, 2260 Sterricker v. Dickinson, 1617 Sterry v. Arden, 959, 1962 Stetson z'. Day, 740, 744 V. Gulliver, 2041, 2364 V. Kempton, 37 u. Massachusetts Ins. Co., 2080 V. Massachusetts Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2357 %'. Patten, 1041 Stevens v. Bridger, 1165 V. Brown, 1999 V. Buffalo & N. Y. C. R. Co., 98 V. Buffalo & N. R. Co., 113 V. Campbell, 250 V. Cooper, 2072, 2076, 2176, 2181, 2184 ■V. Dedham Institution, 2176 V. Dewing, 285, 1005 V. Doe, 2346 V. Dufour, 2157 V. Enders, 706, 1982 14 Stevens \t. GAge, 1725, 1728 v. Hampton, 2123, 2364, 2366 c. Hollingisworth, 1434 V. HolUster, 2298 w. Hunt, 729 «/. Kelley, 7i 7'. Mayor^ 2357 7J-. McNamai-a, 522, 523 c. Nashua, 2206 w. Owens, 777, 807, 833, 900, 901, 9*1 w. Paterson & N. R. Co., ^o ■v. Reed, 868 c. Smith, 598, 6t 1, 748, 749, 759, 761, 766, 779> 78i> 797> 52o,«2i,«27,S3i, ^^32, 940 riK Stevens, 537, 739, 740, 778, 844. 847, 848^ 953. 9657 *074. 3492^ J640, 1G47, 2212, 2213 T'.Sieverts"' Heirs, 81^ 7'. Thompson, 65, 1893 IT'. Watsoft, '2124 ^. WinslMp,^i7,5iS,3J9, 456, 743 z>. Win*lop, 536 w. Winthrop^ 3^^ Stevens, Jackson "e^ ^.>^. Silvernail, 1104, 1113 Steven'son 'fr, Oofferfn, 1:901, 1928 ?/, Dunlap'^s Heirs, 236 W-. Gray. 75:;, 754 c. Leslie, 1741 n). Lombard, ro72, i[073, tiij, 1^74, 2262 7/. Wallace, ■223t. 2240 Stevenson^s 'Heirs?'. McReary, 517 Stewart C'. Apel, ■996^ "344» 1300, 1301, 1321, 1322 ?'. Appeal, n^So rv-, Barclay^ 609, 611, 692, 700, 703 c. Bavow, 359, 263 IK Barrow, 1997, 1998, 2076, 2077, 2079 ?), Beard, 927 ^K Brady, 259, 263, 1S5S v. Brand, 1457, 1459 f. Brown, 1399, 1514 z'. Caldwell, 2009 V. Chadwick, 88, 1577, 1622, 1741, 1753 7'. Clark, 497, 501, 531, 2266 J'. Crosby, 20S5, 2128, 2132 V. Doughty, 47, 48,49. 51. 52. 53-498,537. 538, 540, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1234, 123S, 1239 7'. Fitch, 2270, 2271 z>. Hall, 1794 V. Hartman, 2220, 2327 zj. Hutchings, 2040 ■V. Jones, 2288 zi. Kenower, 424 11. Long Island R. Co., 1122, 1123, 2262 •V. Mackey, 1450, 1458, 1460, 146S, M^J^'i 1475, 147S, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1495 V. Martin, 733, 734, S38, 942, 944 z). Meilish, 1615 V, Pearson, 841 V. Pettus, 16&3, 1730, 1SS5 V. Putnam, 1201, 1202 V. Reditt, 2353 V. Roderick, 1220 "v. Rogers, 1625, 1626 V. Ross, 587, 589, 592, 593, 606, 652, 653, 658, 668, 670, 672, 688 V. Sanderson, 1719 V. Smiley, 2257 •v. State, 1758 ZK Stewart, G54, 7597795.914.917.918,955 zi. Stokes, 1737 V. Walker, 344 V, Winters,268, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1184, 1 185 z}. Wood, 2009 Stewart, Den d., v. Johnson. 915 Stewart, Jackson ex d., zj. Kingsley, 12S3 Stewart's Lessee v. Stewart, 794, 913 St. Felix t/. Rankin, 7892 St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, 2240 ccx TABLE OF CASES. References arc to pages. Sticklehorn 7/. Hatchman, 563 Stidman v. Mathews, 896, 903, 1777 Stierlin v. Daly, 2335 Stiger V. Mahone, 2166 Siiles V. Japhet, 1948 V. Looney, 2056, 2059 V. West, 756 Still v. Spear, 273 Stilley V. Folgev, Sg8, 947, 957 Stillman v. Flenniken, 107 V. White River Mfg. Co., 2226 Stillson v. Stillson, 719 Stillwell V. Doughty, 505 V. Pease, 1666 Stilphen 7/. Houdlette, 771, 919 Stimmel v. Waters, 2263 Slimpson v. Battermaii, 1969 V. Bishop, 2107 V. Fnes, 1795 V. Tliomaston, 764 Stinchfield v. Milliken, 20S9 Stine V. Wilkson, 1755 Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 599, 601, 603, 610 Stiner t/. Cawthorn, S50 Stines v. Dorman, 259, 267, 269 Stinson v. Dousman, 1292 V. Richardson, 1421, 1422 V. Roas, 2064 V. Ross, 2063 V. Sumner, 745, 792, 793, 905, 906, 927 .Stoakes v. Barrett, 87 •Stoate V. Stoate, 661 '^ockand z>. Bartlett, 1949 Stockard v. Stockerd's Admr., 1600, 1601, 1613, 1791- 1795 Stockbridge z>. Stockbridge, 1608 Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Cone Iron Works, 1139, * J14Z V. Hudson Iron Co., 283 Stockett V. Holliday, 647 Stockport Water Works Co. v. Potter, 2227 Stocks V. Booth, 30, 33 ' Stockton V. Dundee Manfg. Co., 2156 v Ford, 1585 V. Martin, 433, 437 Stockwell r/. Campbell, 103, no, 113, 120, 126, 135' 136 v.. Couillard, 283 2/. Hunter,, 20, 64, 66, 507, 1015, 1176, iiSo V. Marks, 115, 145, 1310, 1315, 1334, 1336 V. National Bank of Malone, 1438 V. Phelps, 47 V. Sargeant, 724, 725, 738 Stoddard v. Gibbes, 601, 609, 611,692, 693, 703 V. Hart, 2003, 2030, 2331, 2129 Stoddart v. Cutcompt, 923 Stoddert v. Newman, 2260 Stoever v. Stoever, 308, 2037, 2039, 2164 Stoffel V. Schroeder, 2322 Stokee v. Singers, 2224 Stokes V. Cooper, 1173 V. Dawes, 236 V. Detrick, 76 V. Henshiger, 2247 V. McAllister, 838 V. McKibbin, 611, 653, 654, 655, 656, 677, 680, 6Sg, 6gg, 1216, 1372 V. Moore, 998, 1017, 1044 V. O' Fallon, 750, 775, 889, 927 7>. Payne, 1832 V. Solomans, 2170 V. Upton, 123 Stokoe V. Lingers, 2245 Stomfil V. Hicker, 1300, 1314 Stone V. Bishop, 1707 V. Bohn, 2272 V. Che.shire, 1194 V. Dar»ell, 1442, 1497 V. Ellis, 1870, 1871 V. Gazzam, 647 V. Godfrey, 2074, 2170 z/. Griffin, 1599 Stone V. Hackett, 1594, 1791, 1792 V. King, 1598, 1787, 1789, 1790, 1791 V. X/ane, 2140 V. McMuilin, 418, 420 V. Newman, 386 V. Patterson, 2250, 2258 V. Proctor, 78, 79, 135 V. Sprague, 1282 V. Stone, 795 V. Theed, 519, 1832 7f. Wait, 970 Stonehewer v. Thompson, 2073, 2136, 2171 Stoner's Appeal, 328 Stonestreet v. Doyle, 1684 Stoney z/. Schultz, 2155, 2180 Stookey v. Carter, 1923 V. Stookey, 841 Stoolfoos V. Jenkins, 604, 612, 614 Stoops V. Devlin, 1218, 1315, 1316 Stoppanios v. Richards,. 2264 Stopplebein v. Schulte, 726, 784 Stopplekamp z/. Mangeot, 1300, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1334, 1340, 1343 Storerz/. Batson, 673, 1538 V. Freeman, 99 V. Hunter, 49, 125 V. Steiner, 1148 Storm V. Manchang Co., 72 V. Mann, 571, 574 Storms z*. Storms, 2030 Story V. Marshall, 77S, 1947, 1949 V. Odin, 2223 z/. Saunders, igo8, 1913 Stose V. Heissler, 2260 Stott V. Rutherford, 1081 Stoughton z/. Leigh, 88, Sg, 561, 692, 703, 710, 742, 77S, 779, 790,801, 811,814,853, 860, 861 V. Pasco, 2029, 2030, 2032 Stout V. Curry, 1906 V. Folger, 2025, 2026 V. Kean, 1120, 2250 7/. Keyes, 118, 458, 706 V. Merrill, 1172 Stoutenburgh, Jackson ex d., v. Murray, 518 Stoutz 7/. Rouse, 2168 Stouvenal v. Stephens, Stovall zf. Austin, 678 V. Barnett, 2359 Stovell V. Bennett, 2350 Stover V. Bounds, 2170 V. Cadwaller, 1013, 1305 V. Cory, 1890 V. Eycleshimer, 2017 V. Herrington, 1625 Stow V. Steel, 781, 782, 799 V. Tifft, 765, 766, 805, 818, 829, 830, 1492, . 2358 Stowe V. Bowen, 1732 Stowell's Case, 773 St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 31, 32 Straat v. Uhrig, 1637 Strachn z/. Force, 1412, 1413 V. Foss, 1522 Strafford v. Wentworth, 497 Strahan z>. Smith, 1318, 1326 Strang v. Allen, 2174 Stratford v. Twynam, 1770 Strathmore v. Bowes, 659, 794 Stratton 7>. Gold, 2007 V. Rogers, 645 z/. Staples, 1202 Strauss' Appeal, 2004 Strawbridge v. Cartledge, 2349 Strawn Exrs. v. Slrawn's Heirs, 736, 867, 875 Strawns v. Strawn, 1397 Streaper v. Fisher, 1071, 2216 Street v. Beal, 2 171 V. Bell, 2074 V. Sanders, 723, 724, 789, 846 Streeter v. Streeter, 1080 Streubel v. Milwaukee & M. R. Co., 1518 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXl Stribling V. Ross, 88$ Strieker T*. Mott, 1980, 1984 Strickland v. Aldridge, 1701, 1738 V. Hudson, 1023 V. Parker, 96, 137, 142 Strickland, Doe d., v Spence, 1333, 1337 Strickler v. Todd, 2242, 2292 If. Tracey, 853 Strikers. Kelly, 1515 ■D. Mott, 299, 1607 Strimpfler v. Roberts. 517, 1552, 1576, 1638, 1639, 1641, 1648, 1653, 1654. 1700 Stringer 7/. Young, 2304 Striplin v. Cooper, 1485 Strode v. Russell, 2084 V. Swim, 47 Stroebe v. Fehl. 1364, 1366, 1369, 1370 Strong T*. Blanchard, 2184 V. Bragg. 717, 733, 735, 736, 739 2-. Clem, 651, 670, 711, 733, 734, 736, 839, 8c)3 V. Colter, 1904 z/. Converae, 728, 806, 808, Sog, 873, 925, 928, 2068, 2069, 2134 w. Crosby, 1321, 1323 7). Dennis, 722 7*. Doyle, 78, 79, 81, 143 V. Gregory, 1825 V. Jackson, 2108, 2111 V. Manfs. Ins. Co., 2089,2113, 2114, 2115, 2117 V, Skinner, 990 •u. Smith, 2364 7/. Stewart, 2045, 2048 V. Waterman, 196 Stronghill v. Auterey, 1S32 Stroiher v. Butler, igog z/. Law, 1670,2147 Stroud, In re, 1266 Stroud V. Morrow, 319 Stryker-z*. Lynch, 1979, 19S0, 1981 Stuart v. Beard, 891 V. Bute, 134 V. Kissam, 1371 7/. Palmer, 2324 •V. Phelps, 2060 7*. Walker, 344, 534 V. Worden, 2166 Stubbings v. Village of Evanston, 1171 Stubbs V, Kahn, 2363 V. Sargon, 1638 Stuck V. Mackey, 75 Stuckeyj'. Keef*s Exrs., 1887, 1939 V. Keefe, 1931, 1933 Studdard 7/. Lemmond, 2302 Studebacker Bros. Mfg. Co. v McCar-jur, 2107 Stukely v. Butler, 55, 249, 499 Stults V, Sale, 1403, 1405 Stultz V. Dickey, 1208 Stump V. Findlay, 461, 515, 516, 1142 V. Henry, 517, 1751 Stuphen v Leebas, 11 10 Sturges V. Crowninshield, 1512 V. Knapp, 1574 Sturgis V, Corp, 1562 v. Ewing, 711 ■V. Holiday, 1900 V, Hull, 671 7/. Morse, 1784 77, Paine, 1824 V. Warren, 108 Sturm v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 631 Sturtevant v. Jaques, 1637 V. Norris, 721 V. Sturtevant, 1576, 1590. '7oi Stuyvesant v. Davis, 1138 7/- Hall, 2027, 2113. 2120, 2153, 2154, 2184 V, Mayor, 1856, 1972 V. Mayor of N. Y., 1862, 1864 7/. Woodruff, 2215, 2242, 2244 Styers v, Robins, 2331 Style V. Rector, 997, 1039, 1733 Styles 71, Wardle, 2256 Suarez v. Pumpelly, 1587, 1662 Succession of Christie, 1397, 1407, 1410 Succession v. Navarro, 770 Suffem V. Butler, 2352 V. Townsend, 1256, 12S2 Suffern, Jackson ex d., -v. McConnell, 1024 Suffolk Ins. Co. %>. Boyden, 2 118 Sugg V. Tillman, 2023 Suggate V. Suggate, 1475 Suiter v. Turner, 2366 Sailings v. Richmond, 897, 958, 960, 964 V. SuUings, 964 Sullivan v. Bishop, 2252 V Burnett, 216 V. Carberry, 115, 145, 147, 1253 V. Cary, 1300, 1307, 1315, 1316, 1322, 1336 V. Enders, 1256, 1261, 1337 z*. Hendrickson, 1499, 1504, 1518 7'. Jones, 142, 1313 ■V. La Crosse, 1514 V. McLenans, 778, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1646, logo V. Sullivan, 1983 z'. Toole, 2021 Sully V. Nebergail, 930 V. Schmidt, ijg6 Sulphine v. Dunbar, 2302 Sulzbaclier 7'. Dickie, 1193 Summer 7/. Waugh, 2153 Summerlin v. Livingston, 883 ' Summers 7/. Eabb, 710, 713, 718, 731.733. 734. 735. 737. 739. 741. 790. 79«. 792. 793. 822, 838, S41, 842, 844, 891, gi4 7". Brownley, 2158 V. Cook, 54 7/. Dame, 830 V. Daniel], 1864 V. Donnell, 855, 85S 7/. Pumphrey, 1032 7/. Roos, 2030 Summersworth Savings Bank 7*. Roberts, 2027, 2028, 2029 Sumner 7/. Bromilow, 1158 z/. Coleman, 2151 V. Hampson, 787, 824, 1671 V. Partridge, 675, 696, 697 7'. Stevens, 2303 V. Williams, 449, igSg, 2361, 2362 Sumney v. Patton, 786 Sumwalt V. Tucker, 1998, 2077 Sunday v. Boon, 282 Sunderland v. Sunderland, 1642, 1647 Supervisors, etc., v. Patterson, 1S56 Surget V. Byer, 1757 Surplice v. Famsworth, 1065, 1201 Surrogate, Re, of Cayuga County, 1824 Sury V. Brown, 982, 983, 2250 Sussex V. Roth, 1040 Sussex Co. Mut. Ins. Co. «/. Woodruff, 2118 ' Suterw. Hillaird, 1686 Sutheriand v. Brush, 1888 v. Carter, 1234, 1246 7'. De Leon, 1517 7'. Ooodnow, 1053 7'. Sutherland, 765, 2330 Sutliff 7/. Atwood, 984, iioo, 2249, 2257, 2262, 2263, 2264 <... Forgey, 713, 731, 733. 734.736. 739) 74'. 767. 774, 1929 Sutphen v. Cushman, 2045, 2047 7'. Seebass, 1054 ■v. Elis, 2102 Sutter 7/. First Dutch Reformed Church, 34 7'. San Francisco, 1925, 1978 Sutton V. Aiken, 1563, 1654 V. Askew, 711, 721, 727 I'. Uurrows, 719, 847 V. Calhoun, 2335 V. Jervis, 791, 799, 800 V. Mandeville, 2270 V. Mason, iggg, 2078 ccxu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Sutton V. Miles, 472 V. Robertson, 338 V. Rolfe, 7S5, igii . V. Stone, 214s, 2147, 2157 V. Sutton, 1759 V. Temple, 1055, 1200 v. Warren, 753, 754 Sutton, Doe d., v. Harvey, 1040 Sutton Parish v. Cole, 224, 1541, 1555 Suydam v. Barber, 920 •V. Bartle, 2082 V. Jackson, 1176 V. Jooes, 1074 V. Moore, 1195 V. Williamson, 15 16 Swabey v. Palmer, 1195 V. Swabey, 2098 SwafEord v. Ferguson, 2343 V. Whipple, 2349 Swaine v. Kennerlay, 2281 V. Ferine, 510, 519, 727, 746, 783, 792, 794 795, 796, 802, 814, 840, 866, 867, 880, 892,900,912, 913, 915, Q18, 927,929, 932, 952, 953, 955, 963, 2182 Swaineburn z<. Milburn, 1009 Swallow V. Swallow, 1904, 1906 Swan V. Clark, 995, loio, 1319, 2259 V. Patterson, 2177 V. Swan, 1892 V. Yapple, 2103, 2109 Swann v. Wilson, 1220 Swanner z/, Swanner, 2254, 2255 Swansborough v. Coventry, 2223 Swart V. Service, 2045, 2047 Swartwout, Jackson ex d,, v. Johnson, 489, 513, 517- 589, 590. 592. 593> 598, 602, 603, 604,605,607,608, 612, 6t4, 621, 622, 623, 624, 629, 630, 692 Swartz V. Ballon, 2340 V. Leist, 2147 V. Page, 2192 Swazey v. American Bible Soc, 1687 V. Little, 2270 Swearinger, In re, 1424, 1426 Sweat V. Hall, 647, 2348 Sweeney v. Garrett, 1062 V. Mallory, 923, 924 Sweet V. Dutton, 291, 1675 V. Gloversville, 1193 V. Jacocks, r6i7, 1618, 1619, 1643, 1644, 1738. 1771 V. Parker, 2045, 2048 Sweetapple v. Bindon, 598, 609, 6ti, 679, 695 Sweetland v. Sweetland, 2038 Sweetzer z/. Jones, 96, 133, 138, 2069 V. J^^owell, 1028 Sweezey v, Thayer, 2164 V. WilHs, 363 Swenson v. Moltine Plow Co., 2148 Sweny v. Meany, 1978 Swetland v. Swetland, 2045, 2052 Swett V. Horn, 2131 V. Patrick, igo8 V. Sherman, 808, 809, 2178 Swezay v. Shady, 924 Swift V. Dean, 1149 V. Dewey, 1474. 1490 V. Kdson, 2142, 2149 •V. Goodrich, 983 •u. Kraemer, 1497 V. Kromer, 2134 V. Moseley, 984 V. Mutual Ins. Co., 1668,2113, 2"7 V. Thompson, 105, 108, no, 112. 114, 116, 1 186 V. Tyson, 1516 Swigert v. Bank of Kentucky, 2164 Swinburne v. Swinburne, 1621, 1622, 1760 Swinfen v. Swinfen, 2098 Swinnock v. Lyford, 2172 Swisher v. Swisher, 2349 Switzer v. Skiles, 1617, 1738 Sword V. Low, 116,1085, '^39) 1198 Sybum v. Slade, 1149 Sykes v. Sykes, 7S6, 816, 825, 886, 974, 975 Sylvester v. Downer, 1702 V. Ralston, 1276 Sym's Case, 1024 Syme v. Sanders, 1219 Symington v. Symingtpn, 1464 Symouds v. Hall, 1230, 1234, 1236 V. Harris, 138 Symondson v. Tweed, 1087 Sympson v. Turner, 1553 Syms V. Mayor, 1009 Symson v. Turner, 299, 1583 Syndorw. Syndor, 414 Sypher v. McHenry, 1766 Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 67 1 V. Tallman, 1027, 2065, 2066 Syracuse Savings Bank y, Holden, rSoS V. Porter, x8o8, 1809 Tabb V. Baird, 15S4 Tabele v. Tabele, 8r8, 926 Tabeville z*. Ryan, 1029 Tabler Z'. Wiseman, 702, 1975, 1980, igSr, 1982 Tabor z*. Bradley, 2211 V. Robinson, 104, 120, 137 Tadlock v. Eccles, 1408, 1413, 1414, 1472, i486, 1523 Taffe V. Harteau, 1075 V. Wamick, 105, loS Taft V. Kessel. 2009 V. Stevens, 2085, 2102, 2103 V. Taft, 1592 Taggard v. Rosevelt, 1013, 1319, 1321, 1323 Taggart's Appeal, 885 Taggart v. Murray, 337 Tainter f. Clark, 1599, 1663, 17S7, 17S8, 1S32, 1833, 1835, 1841, 1842, 1844 Taintor v. Cole, 1026, 1924, 1925 Tait V. Hannum, 2071 Takeway v. Barrett, 21 r, 212 Talamo v. Spitzmiller, 1323 Talbot 2/ . Braddil, 201:0 V. BradhiU, 2051 V. Miller, 723, 724, 846, 1206 V. Whipple, 130, 146, 1 161, 11S7 7>. Wilkins, 2t77 Talbott V. Armstrong, 722 V. Grace, 2243 V. Todd, 1574 Talbott's Exrs. v. Bell's Heirs, 1759, 1764, 1777 Taliaferro v. Barnewall, 780 V. Burwell, 619, 690 V. Gay, 2063, 2162 Talley v. Alexander, 1192 V. Giles, 1091 Tanin2:er 7/. Mandeville, 647, 896, 897 Tallmadge v. Sill, 180S, 1820, 1825 V. The East River Bank, 268 Tallman J/. Coffin, 1071, 1078 V, Ely, 2000, 2156 V. Snow, r86o, r866, 1867 V. Wood, i6og, 1694 Tally V. Redd, 1751 Talmo V. Spitzmiller, 12S4 Talson v. Gamer, 1032 T..itarum's Case, 400 Tamm zi. Kelogg, 493 Tamworth v. Ferrers, 544 Taner v. I vie, 1667 Tanguay v. Felthousen, 206S Tanner v. Fowler, 266 V. Hicks, 2007 w. Hills, 1234, 1909 V. Livingston, 333,343 V. Morse, 307 V. Niles, 1985 V. Skinner, 1587 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXIU Tanner v. Volentine, 2212 V. Wise, 30S, 311 Tantlingerw. Sullivan, 11S4, 1233, 1234 Tapley v. Smith, 123 Tapner v. Meriott, 1564 Tappan's Appeal, 501 Tarbell -v. Tarbell, 897, 964 V. West, iq62 Tardy w. Williams, 1017 Tarletou v. Goldthwaite's Heirs, 1781 Taipley -v. Gunnaway, 801 ■V. Hamer, 1518 Tarpy v. Persing, 2272 Tarrant v. Swain, 1421, 1425 Tate V. Blackburn, 1187, 1224 1*. Crowson, 1060, 1139, '^54 V McClure, 1140 V. McCormick, 2262, 2265 V. Stoolfoos, go4 V. StooUtzfoos, 671, 2332 ». Tally, 416 V. Tate, 727, 794, gi2, 914 Tatem v. Chaplin, 1076 Tatom V. McLellan, 305, 497, 1773, 1776 Tator V. Tator, 322, 323 Tatro r'. Tatro, 919 Tattersall v. Howell, 1S50 Tatum V. Hunter, 1624 V. Thompson, 1192 V. Young, 2366 Taul V. Campbell, 227, 1919, 1920, 1930, 1931, 1932. 19331 1940, 1942, 1951 Taunton v. Costar, 1347 zi. Taylor, 4 Tavemer's Case, 1178 Tawney v. Crowther, 10S7 Tayleur u. Wildin, 1307 Tayloe v. Gould, 59S, 600, 608, 692, 694, 703 Taylor, Matter of, 752 Taylor, Re, 596 Taylor v. Adams, 1028, 2152 V. Agricultural Assoc, 2100 V. Atlantic R. Co., 2031 z*. Baldwin, 1892, 1893 •V. Beebe, 982, 1029 V, Benham, 218, 1585, 1636,1664, 1756 V. Birmingham, 939 V. Blake, 1984 V. Boulware, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1403, 1404, 1454, 1457, 1495 V. Boyd, 1662 2/. Bradley, 223, 1229, 1235, 1245 V. Brodrick, 841, 844, 876 V. Buckner, 517 V. Bumsidcs. 2296 V. Carondelet, 1029 V. Carryl, 1516 V. Chary, 532 V. Collins, 117 7). Cornelius, 2030 •V. Cox, 1882 z/. De Bus, 977, 1249, 2263, 2264 V. Dickinson, 1731 V. Duesterberg, 1431 7}. Dulwich Hospital, 1037 V. Eubanks, 1625 V. Fields, 1958 V. Fowler, 782, 891, 926, 92S V. George, 1629, 1630 V. Glazer, 501 V. Hampton, 2243* 2244, 2247, 2303 V. Hargous, 1378, 1386, 1406, 1407, 1442, 1448, 1451, 1460, 1461,1463, 1466, 1495 V. Harwell, 501 •V. Haygarth, 1638 V. Heideron, 1071 7'. Henry, 1587, 1594 V. Hepper, 2362 V. Heriot, 1625 v. Hopkins, 2159 v. Horde, 207, 209, 210, 398, 399, 459 V. Hotchkiss, 2122 Taylor v. Inhabitants of Plymouth, 4 V. Kearn, 781 V. King, 17C6, 1757 V. Langford, 314 p. Luther, 2046, 2048, 2049 V. Mason, 249,265, 1S57, 1863 V. Maule, 1159 V. Mayo, 1747 V. McClain, 2175 V. McCracken, 731, 783, 838, 940 V. Meads, 1807 z/. Millard, 2218, 2240 V. Moore, 934 V. Mosely, 1760 V. Needham, 1073 V, Owen, 1076 V. Patrick, 1033 ■V. Perkins, 1925 7'. Plumer, 1760, 1761 V. Porter, 197, 2074, 2170, 2323,2324, 2325, 2327 ■V. Preston, 1063, 2069, 2362 V. Pugh, 653, 794, 795 z*. Rhyne, 1502, 1519 V. Salom, 1644 7'. Sample, 722, 723 V. Sangrain, 2300 V. Short, 2183 7>. Shum, 1074, 2265 V. Smith, 616, 620, 629, 634, 679 V. Spader, 1047 V. Stearns, 15 12 V. Stibbert, 1009, 1765 V. Sutton, 1848, 185s, 1857, 1859, i860, 1867, 1872 V. Sweet, 757, 758 V. Taylor, 402, 4r8, 422^ 423, 461, 888, 974. 975. 1517. 22O7 V. Thomas, 2126 V. Townsend, 2067 7f. Wamaky, 2217 V. Weld, 2040, 2042, 2049 7'. Whitehead, 1:53, 2208 V. Whitmore, 2069, 2072 7/. Zamira, iioi Tazewell r-. Smith, 75, 76 Teacle's, Re, 657 Teaff p. Hewitt, 103, log, no, in, 112, 113, 114, n6, 118,133, i3S»>3S, 144 Teague v. Downs, 664 Tealz*. Auty, 53, 54 7'. Walker, 2066 Teasdale v. Reaborne, 1625 Tedford v. Wilson, 2018 Teed v. Caruthers, 200S TefEt V. Munson, 2091, 2121 V. Tefft, 755 Telfair 17. Howe, 1888 Telford v. Frost, ii6i Tellman v. Spann, 760 Tempest v. Rawling, 993 Temple v. Scott, 1515 Templemau v. Biddle, 1209 V. Gresham, 2272 Templeton v. Twitty, 593, 598, 6n, 616, 619 Tenant 7/. Goldwin, 64, 507, 1891 Ten Eyck v. Caspard, 2087 v. Creig, 2080, 2086,2155 Ten Eyck, Jackson ex d., v. Richards, 488, 1016 Tennant v. Stoney. 818, 924, 1794 Tennent 7'. Pattons, 2333 V. Tennent, 1693 Tennessee v. Sneed, 151S Tenney v. East Warren Lumber Co., 2013 Tenney d. Gibbs v. Moody, 1594, 1605 Tenney d. Whinnett %>. John, 1743 Tenny v. Agar, 322 V. Moody, 299, 300, 1712 Terhune v. Oldis, 2033 Term v. Smart, 1141 Terrel v. Page, 326 Terrell v. Andrews Co., 2122, 2123 ecxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Terrell v. Martin, 1882, 1900 V. Matthews, 1732 Terrett v. Taylor, 234, 235 TerriU v. Murray, iSgg Terrio v. Guidry, 2129 Territory %i. Lee, 220, 2014 Terry z>. Berry, 1426, 1432 V. Briggs, 415 u. Burnell, 736 V. Ferguson, 1021 12 12 V. Hopkins, 654, 794 V. Resell, 1997,1998, 2076 V. Tuttle, 2061 V. Wiggins, 311, 337, 338 Terry, Doe d., v. Collier, 1574, 1655 Terry's Will, In re, 1627 Tertelling, Re, 1391, 1446 Terwilliger v. Brown, 1763 Tevis V. McCreary, 950, 955, 956 7'. Steele, 760 Tevis' Exrs., 89S, 8gg, 936, 938 Tew V. Jones, 1278, 12S5 V. Winterton, 966 Tewksbury -u. Magraff, 1212 Texas Land and Loan Co. v. Blalock, 1409 Texas Land Co. v. Truman, 1222 ■V. Williams, 2365 Teynham v. Mullins, 1626 Tharp v. Allen, 974 V. Beltz, 20S5, 2087, 2088 Thatcher v. Candee, 1660, 1778 V. Omans, 1557, 1559, 15S3 V. Powell, 2335 V. St. Andrew s Church, 1777, 2353 Thaxter v. Williams, 829 Thayer v. Campbell. 2103, 2104, 2111 V. Clemence, 1093 V. Crammer, 2000, 2078 V. Rock, 45 v. Smith, 2151 11. Society of United Brethren, 12 19 V. Thayer, 727, 728, 773, 794, 795, S87, 891, 912, 913, 914, 921 V. Waples, 1 144 V. Wellington, 1683 V. Wright, 20 Theall v. Theall, 917 Thebaud v. Schmerhom, 1792 Theibaud v. First Nat. Bk., 1135 Thelluson v. Woodford, 618, 22B0 Thelusson v. Smith, 1992 Theobald z/. Duffy, 1361 Theological Inst. v. Barbour, 226 Theological Semmary v. Wall, 466 Thetford v. Thetford, 1025 V. Tyler, 1258 Thiebaud 7/. First Nat, Bk., 1052, 1304, 1315, 1335. 1338 Thimes v. Stumpf, 14S5 Thobolds V. Duffy, 971 Thomas' Appeal, 2134, 2140 Thomas v. Allen, rioi, 2025, 2026 V. Blackemore, 976 V. Brinsfield, 1781 V. Connell, 1108 j7. Cook, 1 161 •V. Crout, 128, 145 V. Davis, 123, 131, 132, 137 V. De Baun, 1027, 1887, 1920, 1950 V. Dickinson, 2071 u. Evans. 504, 505 V. Folwell, 1562, 1674, 1675 V. Gammel, 908 V. Garver, 1979 V. Hanson, 804, 826 V. Harris, 888 V. Hatch, 1913 V. Hesse, 721, 799, 857,888, 889,904, 908, 927 •u. Howell, 1864 V. Kapff, 1 103 V. Kelly, 1349 Thomas v. Le Baron, 2363 V. Marshtield, 2191, 2299 v. Moody, 1267, 1269 V. Nelson, 996, 1322, 1323 V. Noel, 1205 V. Packer, 1316, 1324 V. Pemberton, 2266 V. S. Co., 1273, 127s V. Scruggs, 1735 V. Simpson, 733, 736, 741 V. Standiford, 1622, 1646, 1648 V. Stewart, 2138 V. Stickle, 2301 z/. Thomas, 50S, 600, 760, 763, 1785, 2226, 2243 V. Van Kapff, 1074 V. Vanlieu, 2120 V. Walker, 1623 V. West Jersey R. Co., 2314 V. Willialns, 1457 V. Wood, 434, 937, 939, 2324 V. Wright, J301, 1303, 1308, 1320, 1325, 1333. '335. '336 . V. Zumbalen, 1141, 1316, 1317 Thomas' Admr. v. Kelly, 2118 Thomas' Exrs. v. Van Kaff's Exrs., 2119 Thomas Iron Co. v. Allenton Mining Co., 198 Thomas' Lessee %>. Blackemore, 1225 Thomason 7/. Anderson, 416, 447, 472 V. Boyd, 103 1 Thompson, Matter of, 1456 Thompson v. Barks, 2054 V. Platter. 20^7 V. Blair, 1781 V. Eostwick, 514 V. Bowman, 1960 V. Boyd, 764, 783, 803 V, Branch, 1291 V. Browcr, 1291 V. Brown, 1715 V. Chandler, 2073, 2097, 2139 V. Clark, 1223 V. Cochran, S04, 813, 814, 818, 874 V, Commissioners, 1951 11. Craigmyle, 49, 51 V. Davenport, 2168 V. Davies. 1770 V- Egbert, 932, 933 V. Finch, 1732 V. Gant, 267 V. Garwood, 325 V. Gerrisli, 1903 V. Gibson, 297 V. Green, 651, 1366 V. Gregoi7, 283, 2240 V. Heywood, 805 V. Hickery, 2059 V. Hoop, 947 V. Kenyon, 2100,2103 V. Ketchani, 1702, 2056 V. Lawley, 1807 V. Leach, 9S6, 987, 1786, 1788 V. Lyon, 1781, 1827 V. Maberly, 1335 V. Madison, B. & A. Assoc, 2160 V. Marrow, 791 V. Mawliinney,97o, 1233, 1234, 1909 V. May, 763 V. McClenachan, 2358 V. Mead, 2272 V. Meek, 1788 V. Miner, 2241 ' V. Morrow, 789, 823, 841, 844, 845, ^3 908 V. Murray, 1827 V. Murry, 761, 788, 820, 832 V. Newton, 1S89 V. Pioche, 16S7, 2297 V. Rose, 1078 V. Salmon, 1921 V' Simpson. 1 142 V. Spencer, 2321 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXV Thompson zf. Stacey, 719 V. Swoope, 346 •u. Thompson. 498, 538, 595, 764, 781 784, 16S5, 1S67, 2070, 235s V. Vance, 780, 820, 821 V. Waters, 224 V. Wlieatiey, 1622 V. Wilhte. 51 Thompson, Doe d., v. Gebron, 1549, 1550 V. Pitcher, 16S7, 2297 Thompson's Lessee v. Green, 517 V. Hoop, 306, 309 V. White, 1699 Thorns V. Thorns, 1409, 1452, 1524 Thomson's Estate, j^^. 4S7, 1S06, 1836 Thomson v. BarkerviUe's Case, 2149 T'. Guyon, 1157 V. MackworLh, 373 r. Peake, 1219, 1610, i6n, 1614 1'. Sanborn, 2216 v. Shakespeare, 1689 V. Waterloo, 22 11, 2216 V. Wilcox, 2121 Thomson, Doe d., v. Amey, 13 16 Thorn v. Ingraham, 804 V. Ingram, 832 V. Thorn, 1425, 1438, 1964, 1988 Thombrough v. Baker, 2049 Thomburg z/. Jones, 1755 V. Tliornburg, 731 Thomdike v. Burrage, 1097, 1106 V. Norris, 2100 Thomdyke v. City of Boston, 1455 Thome z*. Deas, 1183, 1191 V. Newby, 2165 V. Thorne, 2063 Thomhill v. Hall, 345 Thomley v. Thornley, 1952, 1953 Thorns v. Adams, 733 Thornton,/?/ re, 21 Thornton v. Appleton, 1032 V. Boyden, 1388, 1419, 1450, 1479, 1506 V. Exchange, 1919 V. Gaillard, [810 V. Irwin, 1766, 2163 V. Knapp, 6gi V. Knox, 2005, 2006 V. Krepp, 6S9, 690 V. McGrath, 671 V. Mehring, 974, 975 V. Mulquinne, 201, 202, 311. 312 V. National Exchange Bank, 904 z'. Payne, 992 ■V. Stokill, 1760 V. Strauss, 1292 'u, Thornton, 1920, 1937, 1952 V. York Bank, 19 12 Thornton's Exrs. v. Kreeps, 656, 657 Thorough's Case, 2354 The rough good's Case, 2353 Thorp, In re, 1715 Thorp, Davies, /« re^ 695 Thorp V. Keokuk Coal Co., 2068, 2069, 2071, 2072, 2322 Thorpe v. Dunlap, 2006, 2007 V. Fowler, 996, 2272 Tj. Goodall, 1825 V. Owen, 1587, 1824 V. Rutland, etc., Co., 4 V. Durbond, 2124 Thortons v. Dick, 786 Thrall v. Omaha Hotel Company, 989, 1213, 1222 Thrash v. Bennett, 2020 Thrasher v, Bettis, 1449 V. Pinkhard, 729, 844, 864 Throgmorton v, Whelpdale, 1308 Throop zi. Field, 1157 V. Hatch, 1592 Throp V. Johnson, 841, 844, 1849 V Throp, 754, 1955 Thrusby v. Plant, 2263 Thunder d. Weaver v. Bekher, 134S Thurber f. Dwyer, 996, 1264, 1308, 1321, 1322, '335, 1338 It. Townshend, 585, 651, 653, 670 Thurber & Co. zk Conners, 976 Thurbett v. Thurbett, 311 Thurman zk Jenkins, 2023, 2024 Thurston v, Dickinson, 514, i8gi V. Hancock, 223*, 2232, 2235 zj. Haddocks, 1425 V. Maslerson, 1882, iggo V. Minke, igir, X984 z>. Prentiss, 2140 Thynn v. Duvall, 518 z>. Thynn, 777, 779, 1701 Tibbals v. Jacobs, 1016 Tibbetts z'. Percy, 1083, 1084, 1086 Tibbiis V. Tibbits, 347, 1630, 1631 Tibbson v. , 773 Tibbs 7/. Allen, 19S6 z). Morris, 2045 Tice ZI. Annin, 2126, 2150, 2272 Tickner z'. Wiswall, 2061 Ticknor z/. McLelland, 51 Tidbali 71. Ij.ipiou, 416, 425 Tidd 7'. Lister, 1371 Tidswell ?'. Whitworlh, 1 102 Tierman 71. Hiiiman, 2051 V. Thurman, 2004, 2006 Tiernan 7'. Binns, 960 V. Creditors, 1420 V. Johnson, 1319, 1324, 1334 V. Roland, 466 Tifft ». Horton, 116, 117, 122,132,141 Tilden v. Barker, 668, 701 Tiley v. Meyers, 9S3 Tilford », Fleming, 11 20 z/. Torrey, 1622, 1645, 1760 Tilghman's Estate, 630 Tilghman ?'. Little, 1217, 1220, 1222, 1291 Tilley zf. Simpson, 202, 306, 307, 326 Tillingliast :-, Bradford, 253, 274 ZI. Champlin, 1957, ig6i z). Coggsliall, 645, 656, 678, 679, 680, 683, 6S4, 1372, r6o9 V. Troy & Boston R. Co., 198 Tillman t. Cowand, 2366 V. Delacey, 116, 133 7'. Fuller, 997 Tillotson 71. Boyd, 2068 v. Doe, 1 144 V. Kennedy, 2301 V, Millard, 1378, C3S6, 1442, 1443, 1445, 1504, 1513, J517 V. Smith, 2223, 2229 ZI. Wolcott, 1503 Tillson 7'. Moulton, 2047 Tilly z'. Tilly, 1583 Tilson V. Thompson, 865, S78 Tilt, Doe d., v. Strattom, 1269, 1293, fjio Tilton V. Hunter, 2365 V. Vail, 641 Tilyoun v. Graveeend, 1029 Times Co. v. Siebrecht, 1157 Ttmewell v. Perking, 33S Timlin zi. Standard Oil Co., 1197 Timmins v. Rawlinson, 1270, 1299, 1307, 1313, 1320, 1338, 1344 Timms v. Shannon, 136, 1993, 1995, 1997 Timothy v. Chambers, 1524 Tinder v. Davis, 1316. 2271 Tinicum Fishing Co. v. Carter, 2189, 2213, 2214 Tinker v. Cobb, 2272 V. Van Dyke, 151S Tinnen v, Mebane, 1782 Tinney v. Tinney, 955 Tinsley v. Jones, 416, 447, 472 Tinsman zk Belvidere, 2248 Tippet ZI. Eyres, 1843, 1844 V. Jett, 1213 Tippets V. Waller, 42, 43, 817 Tippin r/. Coson, 1537 CCXVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Tipping 7f. Cozzens, 153S V. Eckersley, 1 185 V. Robbins. 1026, 1926 Upton V. La Rose, 396 V. Martin, 1521 Tisdale 2'. Harris, 817 V. Jones, 957 ?'. Risk, 832 7'. Tisdale, 1766, 1770 Titcheneli I'. Jackson, i6go Titcomb 7/. Morrill, 1537, 15S6, 1637 Titman v. Moore, 1449, 1454, i459> >4'^i» 1462, 1467 Titterton 2'. Cooper, 2266 Titsworth 7>. Stout, i8go, iggo Titus 7/. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 2114 V. Miller, 730 7/. Morse, 2302 ■V. Neilson, 68g, 783, Soo, 813, 814, 81S, 940 Titusville Novelty Iron Works v. Graham, 976 Tobey v. McAllister, 2005, 2008 7'. Moore, 266, 268 Tobias 7*. Francis, 106, 108, J26 V. Ketchum, 917, 918, 942, 944, 955, 1227, 1592 Tobin V. Young, 1227 Toby V. County of Bristol, J051 7'. Reed, 2067 Todd V. Austin. 2326 V. Raglow, 823 V. Beatty, 839, 843, 844,890 V. Flight, 1194, 1198, 1 199 V. Gordy, 1445 v^ Hardie, 2054 r. Jackson, 1356 r. Lee, 1373, 20I2 v^ Moore, 1776 V. Outlaw, 203S v. Oviatt, 692, 703 7'. Pratt, 445 V. Sawyer, 217 V. Zachary, 1940 Toker v. Toker, 1790 Tolar v. Tolar, 307 Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Curtenins, 924 Toler V. Seabrook, 2249, 3255, 2257 V. Sebrook, 2255 V. Siator, 1025, 1368 Toleman v. Fortbury, 553, 1140, 1152 Tollz/. Hiller, 2130 Toll Bridge v. Osbom, 43 Telle V. Orth, 969, 1131, 1135, 1304, 1315, 1316 TolJes V. Wood, 1798 Tollett 7/. ToUett, 1840 Tolman v. Emerson, 207 V. Sparhawk, 2303 Tolson V, Tolson, 1593, 1631 Tom V. Daily, 924 Tome V. Merchants and Builders* Loan Co., 2148 Tomey f. Gerhart, 2165, 2167 Tomkins 7'. Lawrence, 1300, 1301, 1306 Tomlin v. Dubuque & M. R. Co., 69 V. Hilyardj 1421, 1426 Tomlinson v. Dighton, 319, 337, 487 7f. Monmouth Ins. Co., 2042, 2116 Tompkins, Estate of, 1382, J406, 1451 Tompkins z'. Elliot, 1853, 1855 V. Fonda, 733. 734, 735.736* 741, 838 V. Snow, 1148, 1216, 12 17 V. Wheeler, 1600, 1794 V. Wiltberger, 2153 Tompson ?'. Mawhinney, 2254 Toms 7'. Boyes, 2080 V. Williams, 1592 Tondre v. Cushman, 1214 Tone 7<. Brace, q74, 1065, 1080 Tonkins 7'. Ennis, 1626 Tong V. Eifort, 1475 V. Marvin, e;86, 587, 653, 1362, 1514 Tongue v. Nutwell, 1224 Tood v. Pratt, 466 V. Sands, 2106 Tooke V. Hardeman, 717, 916, 935. 955 V. Hartley, 2157 Tookerv. Smith, 1303 Tooker's Case, igii Toole 7/. Beckett, 1196 Toombes z*. Conset, J034 Tooney v. JNIcLean, 764, 80S Topham v. Portland, 1841 Topping z/. Sadler, 1024, 1919, 1941, 1945 Torpy V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 1194 Torrence v. Carberry, 766 7>. Carby, 760, 764 V. Bank of Orleans, 1617, 1707, 1769 Torrey v. Burnett, 122, 130, 142, 145, 146, 1224 V. Deavitt, 2100, 21J0 V. Minor, 731, 733, 734, 736, 741, 83S, 8S4 V. Torrey, 1025, 1344, 1920, 1931, 1932, '9St V. Wains, 1074, 1077 Torriano v. Young, 563, 1153 Torres Estate, 1021, 2182 Tottel V. Howell, 983 Totten V. Stuyvesant, 785 Totten, Jackson ex d., v. Aspell, 718, 733, 734, 736, 739» 741 Touchard t/. Crow, 2321 Toulmin v. Austin, 2349 Tourv V. Cassin. 2056 Tourville V. Pierson, 1378, 1416, 1434, 1442 Tousley v. Tousley, 2027, 2122 Tower*s Appropriation, 1773 Tower v. Davys, 939, 965 2'. Divine, 810 Towery v. Henderson. 1212 Towie ?}. Ayer, 206, 209, 211,601 z'. Palmer, 1853, 1S55 V. Remsen, 1853, 1855 Towles V. Burton, 1699, 1701 Town 7'. Needham, 1892, 1900 Town of Lemington v. Stevens, 1041 Town of Pawlet 7/. Clark, 149, 234 Towne v. Ammidown, 1734 V. Butterfield, 1149, 1213, 12S2, 1297 V. Campbell, 1312 V. Fiske, 105, 108, iro, 123, 138, 139, 1224 Towner v. McClelland, 2106, 2109, 2127 V. Wells, 2140 Townley v. Gibson, 84 V. Rutan, 1319 71. Sherburne, 1732, 1733 Townsend 7>. Asli, 44 71. Brown, 896 71. Downer, 1913 7>. Empire Dressing Co., 2031 7'. Gilsey, 979 V. Griffin, 661 V. Harwell, 1794 V. Jsenberger, 1230, 2230 V. Jemison, 2299 7'. Mathews, 645 V. Mayer, 2325 7', McDonald, 2226 7'. Reed, 1124 V. Riley, 2057 7'. Stansgroom, 554 V. Townsend, 671, 865, gio, 956, 960, 15:7 V. Ward, 2070 V. Wils*on, 1731, 1817, i8tS TownshendT'. Marquis Stangroom, 2048 7^ Townshend, 1782, 1783. 17S4, 1984 V. Windham, 1626, 1820, 1825 Townson v. Tickell, 1786, 1788, 1780, 1844 Trabuez/. McAdams, iirfi, 2262, 2264,227c V. Ramage, 1220, 1223 Tracy v. Albany Exchange Co., 10S7, icSS, logi 1092, 1320 V. Atherson, 2291 V. Atherton, 1913, 2219, 223S V. Colby, 1620 V, Craig, 1620 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. ccxvu Tracyt^ Dutton, T014 ■V. Hereford. 509, 572 V. Jenks, 2061 7'. Kelley, 1622, 1760 V. Kilborn,305, 311 I'. IMunay, 937 1}. Norwich, 229S "u. Suydam. 1902 1'. Tracy, 1502 Trade Ins. Co. v'. Barracliff, 632 Trader 7'. Lowe, 646, Sgs, 193S Traders' Ins. Co. v. Newman, 632 Trafford v Boehm, 1721 Trafton 7'. Homes, 2316, 2317, 231S 7'. Howes, 2315 Train 7' Boston Disinfecting Co., 4 Trammall v. Trammall, 63 Trammell z>. Harrell, 18S4 Transportation Co. v. Clijcago, 2232 Traphagen 7'. Burt, 1652 Trapnall z'. Brown, 1586, 1590, 1637, 1645 Trappes 7'. Harter, 125 V. jMeredith, 253 Trash i-. White, 2094 Trask v. Donoghue, 1598 ■V. Ford, 2292 V. Patterson. 1364, 1365, 1367 •u. Wheeler, 1849 Traote 7'. White, 2235 Travellers zk Noland, 707 Travis z/. Bishop. 2125 Trawick z/. Harris, 1405 Tray nor 7'. Palmer, mo Trayser v. Trustees of Indiana, 2146 Treackle v. Coke, 2265 Tread way v. Sharon, 123 Treadwell v. McKeon, 1621 V. Salisbury Mfg. Co. 2342 _v. Williams, 19G2 Treat v. Pierce, 2077 V. Reilly. J901 Trelawney v. Booth, 94, 434 Tremmel v. Kleiboldi, 654, 655, 678, 679, 682, 6S3. 1372 Tremmouth i'. City of San Francisco, 2308 Trench z'. Harrison, 1623 Trent 7/ . Hanning, 1594 Trenton 7'. Water Power Co., 186G Trenton Banking Co. ?'. Woodruff, 1371 Treon's Lessee 7'. Emerick, 1924 Tress 7/. Savage, 1136. 1310, 1321 Treves v. Townshend, 1725 Trevivan ik Lawrence, 2301 Trevor 7/. Trevor, 1693 Trible v. Anderson, 2254 V. Frame, 1356 Trickey 7'. Sclilader, 2205 Trim v. Marsli, 2295 Trimble v. Trimble, 597 Trimm v, Marsh, 1093, '*304> 2000, 2078, 2085 Trimpston v. Hamill, 21S4 Tripe v. Marcv, 2077, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2126, 2146, 2175 Triplett v. Graham, 1428 Tripp V. Brownell, 2020 V. Hasceig, 46 V. Riley, 1909 7>. Tripp, 1697 Triscony v. Orr, 982 Tritt V. Calwell, 13" Tritton v. Foote, loog Trivillo v. Tilford, 50 TroUope v. Linton, 2344 Tromans 7/. Mahlman, 1383, i445» '446 Troth V. Hunt, 745. 923, 2149 Trott V. City Ins. Co., 1051 Trotter v. Blocker. 1670 V. Cassady, 517 V. Dobbs, 1499 V. Howard, 1625 71. Hughes, 266, 2068, 2069 Trough's Estate, 1739 Troughton v. Troughton, 1825 Troup V. Haight, 2121 7'. Sherwood, 625 V. Wood, 1770 Trousdale z', Darnell, 1337 Trout V. McDonald, 1025, 1041 V. Rumble, 1440 Trow V. Berry, 2041 Trowbridge v. Cushman, 2028 V. Sypher, 802 Trowbridge, Jackson ex d., u. Dunsbagh, 1566 Trower v. Chadwick, 2232 Troy V. Troy, 536 Trucks V. Lindsay, 2052 V. Lindsey, 2054 V. Lindslay, 2053 True V. Haley. 2150, 2169 V. Morrill. 31, 137S, 1419, 1420, 1433, 1483, ^5'4, 1515 V. Nicholls, 294, 411 V. Ranney, 594 Truebody v. Jackson, 2006 7/ Jacobson, 2004 Truesdell v. White, 1881 Trull V. Eastman, 1063 V. Fuller, 117, 138, 143 V. Granger, 971, 978, 997, 1092, iiii, 1245 V. Skinner, 2041, 2053, 2055, 2158 Trullinger v. Webb, 45 Truman v. McCallum, 2033 Trumble z'. Trumble, 1521 Trumbull, Den ex d., v. Gibbons, 323 Truscott 7>. King, 2023, 2027 Truss V. Old, 1022 Trust & Loan Co. v. Covert, 2301 Trust National Bank of Tama City?/. Hayzlett, 2120 Trustees v. Center, 1375 V. Dickinson, 2294 V. Dickson, 2077, 2181 V. Kirk, iSq8 •V. Pratt, 777 7'. Spencer, 1043 V. Watson, 2305 Trustees, etc.,?'. Peaslee, 1555 Trustees for Support of Public Schools r/. Anderson, 2166 Trustees of Bridgewater Acad. ?>. Gilbert, 1670 Trustees Concord Township z'. Miller, 1029 Trustees of Farmington Academy v. Allem, 1670 Trustees First Baptist Church of Ilhaca v. Bigelow, 31, 32, 36, S3 Trustees of Frazier v. Centre. 826 Trusteesof tween Tp. z'. Robinson, 1017, 1213 Trustees of Hawesville v Hawes, 89 Trustees of Limerick Acad. 7>. Davis, 1671 Trustees of Louisville v. Gray, 2014 Trustees of Mclntyre v, Zauesville Canal & Manf. Co., 16S4 Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church in Pulteney v. Stewart, 1706 Trustees New York Prot. Epis. Public School, Re, 1517 Trustees South Baptist Church z/. Yates, 1557, 2150 Trustees, etc.. Town of E. Hampton -v. Kirk, 1916 Trutch V. Bunnell, 233 Trutt V. Spotts, 1063. 2362 Trutton v. Foote, 10S8 Tryon v. Munson, 2036, 2076, 2077 V. Sutton V. 2023 Tscheider z'. Biddle, 1086, 1089 Tubb V. Fort, 2250, 2257 Tucker v. Adams, 1276, 1282 21. Andrews, 654, 658, 794 71. Baldwin, 1701 V. Buffum, 2090 V. Burrow. 1647 V. Campbell, igoi V. Cox, 2255 ccxvm TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Tucker z*. Crowley, 805,806, 808,810 V. Femio, 2014 V. Field, Soo, 2024 V. Fields, 2022 V. Fitts, 876 V. Kenniston, 1440, 1502, 1519 V. Moorland, 985, 986 V. Moreland, 1031,2342 V. Palmer, 1704 V Tucker, 292, 293, 914* 1721, 1722, 1808 V. Vance, 733, 736, 739 V. Whitehead, 2259, 2267 Tucker, Doe d., v. Morse, 1325 Tudor w. Samyue, 136 c Tufts V. Adams, 729, 1095 ' V. Tufts, 1770, 2314 Tuffnal V. Page, 203 Tuick V. Ludborough, 1844 Tuite V. Stevens, 2125 Tulk V. Moxhay, 267, 2214 Tull V. David, 1735 Tuller, Re, 671 TuUett V. Armstrong, 252, 257, 270, 1361, 1373, 1561 TuUey v. Alston, 827 Tullis' Admr, v. Young, 1035 Tullit V. Tullit. 77, 95 TuUoch V. Hailley, 719 V. Hartley, 36S, 2057, 2289 Tumlinson ^, Swinuey, 1378, 1386, 1439, 1442, M47. 1448. 1457. 1458 Tunis V. Grandy, 2268 Tunno v. Roberts, 2031 Tuno V. Trezevant, 959 Tunstall v. Christian, 2223, 2233 V. Jones, 1497 Tuolumne Redemptiou Club "V. Sedgwick, 2171 Tupperw. Fuller, 1920 Turbett V. Turbett's Exrs., 201, 202 Turbeville v, Gibson, 784 Turing, Ex parte, (i(yi, 756 Turing v. Turing, 316 Turk V. Funk, 2125 Turley v. Massengill, 336, 499, 1709 Tuillr/. Fuller, 103 Turly V. Rodgers, 1217 Turnag; v. Greene, 1577 TumbuU V. Rivers, 2207 Turner v. American Baptist Union, 2307 V. BisssU, 1241, 1242, 1244 V. Cool, 45 V. Eford, 1612 V. Fowler, 259 V. Jenny, 795 V. Johnston, 2160 V. I vie, 1709 V. Kerr, 2044, 2052 V. Lowe, 1213, 1220 V. Meymott, 1347 V. Meyers, 594 V. Morgan, 1973 V. Peck, 161 1 ■V. Pettigrew, 1623 V. Quincey Mut. F. Co., 2119 V. Richardson, 1115 V. Rusk, 2345 V. Steep, 2364 V. Street, 1764 V. Teddult, 1855 V. Thomas, 1290 V. Thompson, 2223, 2241 V. Timberlake, 1806 V. Tuolumne Water Co., 1099 7'. Turner, 24, 1361 7'. Watkins, 1997, 1998, 2083 V. Whittem, 1398 V. V/illiams, 2268 V. Wright, 231 Turner, Doe d., z/. Bennett, 1293, 1296 Tuniey v. Smith, 870, 876 V, Sturges, 845 Tumipseed v. Cunningham, 2052 Turnure v. Hohenthal, 2267 Tuthill V. Scott, 2228 Turrill v. Northrup, 414 Tuttle V. Amstead, 2166 V. Bean, 1151, 1344 V. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 733 V. Reynolds, 1214, 1309 V. Strout, 1509 V. Wilson, 872, 931 Twelves v. Nevill, 292, 293 Twinings' Appeal, 1792 Twitchellw. McMurtie, 2102 Twombly 7'. Cassidy, 2136, 2137, 2172 Twomey v. Crowley, 1700 Twopenny v. Peqton, 274 Twort V. Twort, 576, 1903, 1969 Twynman v. Pickard, 1072 Tyler v. Mina. F. Ins. Co., 1912 v. Beecher, 2328 V. Carlton, 1698 V. Disbrow, 1168 V. Hammond, 2243 V. Heidorn, 252, iro8, 1139, 2262 7/. Lake, 1371 zi. Taylor, 1905 V. Tyler, 1689 7'. Wilkinson, 2224, 2291,2292, 2334 Tyrrel's Case. 299, 1559, 1564, 1582 Tyrrell v. Marsh, 1S45 V. Ward, 2136, 2138,2150 Tyrringham's Case, 547, 2199 Tyrwhitt v. Tyrwhitt, 2098 Tyson v. Blake, 344 v. Harrington, 799 v. Post, 106, 107 7'. Postlethwaite, 2286 V. School Directors, 671 u. Udall V. Kenney, 1757, 1758 Udell V. Peak, 1214 Uelker v, Hochn, 2011 Uhler -v. Hutchinson, 2126 V. Sample, 694, 824 Uhlig V. Garrison, 984, 1035 Ullman v. Herzburg, 1132 Ulp 7'. Campbell, 909 Underbill v. Collins, 1159, 1161 V. Harwood, 2356 V. Saratoga, 1848, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1862 Underwood v. Birchard, 1079, 1080 V. Birchwood, 1037 V. Campbell, 501, 2319 V. Carnig, 2218 V. Hitchcox, 1087, 1758 V. Lilly, 671, 904, 905 Z'. Staney, 1870 V. Stevens, 1733 V. Sutliffe. 1652 Unfried v. Heberer, 291 Unger v. Bamberger, 1304 V. Leiter, 715, 818 V. Mooney, 2296, 2297 V. Smith, 2166 1 Uniacke, In re, 1786 Union Bank v. Emerson, 103, 104, 132, 138 z>. Meeker, 1701 V. State, 42 Union Banlcing Co. v. Gittings, 996, loio, 2260 Union Canal Co. v. Young, 370, 390, 2297 Union Gold Mining Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 1042 ' Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 1592 Union Mut. Life Ins. Co.z/. Levitt, 1999 V. Slee, 2100, 2106 z/. White, 2169 Union Nat. Bank v. Matthews, 225 Union Pac. Co v. De Busk, 198 V. Durant. 1661, 1697, 1698, 1768, 1782 Union Savings Bank v. Pool, 2040 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXIX Union Water Co. v. Crary, 2238, 2239 V. Murphy's Fluming Co., 2017,2021 Unitarian Soc. v, Woodbury, 1590, 1691 United States z*. Amedy, 1540, 1554, 1553 V. Appleton. 2223, 2234, -241 V. Arredondo, 2304 V. Athens Armory, iggg V. Bostwick, 1067, 1068, 1152, 1153, 1228 V. Canibuston, T96 V. Castillero, 88 V. Crosby, 36S, 720, 2057, 2058, 22S8, 22S9 V. Cutts, 2003 V. Duncan, 055, 956 V. Fitz^rald, 2306 V. Gratiot, 970, 983, 2249, 2254,2314 V. Hall, 1428 V. Harmon, 5 V. Hooe, 2030 V. Kimmull, 1199 V. King, 2357 V. Lambert, 596 V. McCorraick, 596 V. McRae, 1036 V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 201S V. Parrott, 98 V. Railroad Bridge Co., 2307 V. Reese, 370, 390 V. Reid, 1516 V. Schuler, 53, 58 V. Shinn, 2309 V. State Nat. Bank of Boston, 1761 V. Sturges, 2028 V. Sturgis, 2170 United States Bank v. Bavery, 1605 V. Covert, 2105 V. Huth, 2342 United States ex rel. Van Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 1512 United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver, 2120 Universities of Oxford v. Richardson, 572 University v. Bank, 1783 University of North Carolina 1'. Nat. Bank, 1781 University of Oxford 71. Clifton, 424 University of Vermont v. Joslyn, 1118, 226S V. Reynolds, 1881 V. Reynold's Exrs., 517 Updegraff v. Edwards, 2106 Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1603, 1604, 16S1 Upham z>. Archer, 2341 V. Bradley, 1979, 1981 V. Vaiing, 1579 V. Vamey, 1597, 1604, 1796 Upjohn V. Richland Board of Health, 41 XTpman 7/. Second Ward Bank, 1504 Upshaw V. Hargrove, 2006 z'. Upshaw, 947, 948 Upton V. Ferrers, 60 V. Greenlees, 1174 V. Townend, 1166, 1168, 1173, 1174 V. Tribilcock, 1581 Upton, Doe d., v. Witherwick, 1206 Urann v. Coates, 1587, i68g, 1690 Uray v. Davenport, 1448 Urich's Appeal. 1815 Urch V. Walker, 1786 Uridiasw. Morrell, 1317, 1351 Usher V. Moss, 1300, 1315, 133*? V. Richardson, 901 Usina v. Wilder, 2024 Vail V. Foster, 2008 V. Vail, 300, 1605 V. Weld, iig6 Valentine v. Ford, 2346 V. Havener, 2147 V. Jackson, 2273 V. McCue, 2158 V. Piper, 2290, 2291 Vallauce v. Bausch, 670, 679 Valle V. Obenhause, 590 Valletta 7/. Bennett, 1739, 1998 Valley Falls Co. v. Dolan, 2242 Valliant v. Dodemede, 2265 Valpey v. Rea, 1032 Valton V. National Life Assurance Co., mo Vanables v. Morris, 1583 Van Aken v. Clark, 1958 Van Allen, Jackson ex d., t*. Rogers, 1270 Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 340, 535 Van Amee v. Jackson, 1633 Van Arsdale v. Drake, 515 2>. Van Arsdale, 918, 940, 955 Van Arsdall w. Fauntelroy, 517, 607, 608, 610, 612 Van Blarcom v. Kvp, 1268, 1271 Van Bracklin v. Fonda, 1 199 Van Bramer v. Cooper, 103 1 Van Brocklin v. Corporation of Brantford, 1245 Van Brunt 7'. Pope, 1961, 20S2, 2260 Van Buren v. Olmstead, 2073, 2184 V. St. Joseph Co. Ins. Co., 2114 Vance's Heirs v. McNairy, 1773 Vance w. Campbell, 271, 1858 V. Johnson, 1215, 1284^ 1998, 2076, 2077 V. McNairy, 2365 V. Vance, 950, 954, 956, 963, 1739 Van Cleaf 7'. Barnes, 919 Van Cleave ?', Wilson, 1409, X523, 1524 Van Cortland v. Laidley, 221, 222 Van Cortlandt v. Tozer, 492 Van Cortlandt, Jackson ex d., v. Parkhurst, 1125, 1270, 1271, 1335 Van Cott V. Prentice, 1690 Vandecourt zf. Gould, 1035 Van Denburg, Jackson ex d., Bradt, 1270, 1271 Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 2166 Vanderburgh 7/. Hull, 1241, 1242 Tandercook 7'. Baker, 2106 Vandergrift's Appeal, 976 Vanderheyden 7/. Craudall, 300, 359, 471,601, 1605 Vanderhorst t-. Bacon, 1399, 1402 Vanderhuel v. StoiTs, 2270 VanderkarT*. Reeves, 2263 Vanderkam v. Neuderkan, 2362 Vanderkemp 7'. Shelton, 811, 2097,2126, 2147. 2149 Vanderplank v. King, 1693 Vanderpool z>. Allen, no V. Van Allen, loS, 113 Van der Volgen 7'. Yates, 297, 1538,1551, 1564, 1586, 1610, 1637 Vanderwerker v. Vanderwerker, 342, 1980^ 1984 Van Derzee v. Van Derzee, 332, 536 Van Deusen v. Young, 543, 557 Vandever's Admrs. v. Freeman, 1697, 1759 Vandever's Appeal, 1731 Vandever z'. Baker, 890 Vandike's Appeal, 1923 Van Diveer v. Slickney, 1283, 1286 Van Doren v. Everitt, 1022, 1023, 1209 V. Todd, 2005 V. Van Doren, 789, 823, 841, 843 Van Duyne v Thayre, 783, 801, 803, 940 V. Vanduyne, 346, 1593, it32 Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 635, 636, 637, 642 Van Dyck v. Van Buren, 1915 V. Johns, 1611, 1613, 1707, 1767, 1769, 1776 V. Johnson, 1776 Vane v. Barnard, 544, 559, 569, 572 Van Epps v. Van Epps, 1617, 1707, 1769 Van Etta v. Evanson, 2341 Van Every 7'. Ogg, 1084, 1086 Van Gelder7^ Post, 841, 843 Van Gilder zl Park, 823 Van Gordon v. Jackson, 518 Van Grnder v. Smith, 182 1 Van Guidler ?'. Justice, 955 Van Horn v. Goken, 2272 ccxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Van Horn z*. Harrison, 1564 V. Keeuan, 2013 Van Home v. Campbell, 344, 345, 349 V. Grain, 1072, 1074, 1076, 1077 v. Fonda, 1617, 1738. iqgo Van Home's Lessee %', Dorrance, 852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1863, 1869 Van Houten v. First Reformed Dutch Cliurchj 38.39 Van Husan v, Kanouse, 2131, 2144 Van Keureu 7/. Central R. Co. of N. J., 96 V. Corkins, 2109, 2110 Van Kirk v. Skillman, 2012 Vanleer z/. Vanleer. 761, 762, 815 Van Meter?'. McFadden, 2004 Vann v. Rouse, it66 Vanmeter v. Vanmeter. 2028 Vannatta v. Brewer, 1138, 1150, 1151 Van Ness w. Hyatt, 782 V. Pacard, 118, 119, 122, 123, 130,458,707, 1 187, 1209 Van Nests'. Latsom, 2150 Vannice %>. Bergen, 2134 Van Nostrand -v. Wright, Hill & D., 985 Van Note v. Downey, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1366, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1376 Van Ordenz/. Van Orden, 916,918, 935,944,946, 947 Van Peltz;. McGraw, 2186 Van Rensselaer u. Akin, 1798 V. Ball, 251, 1049, 1139, 1849, 1852, 1859, 1 861 V. Barrington, 2262 V. Bradley, 1071, 1072, 1108, 1116, 2262 V. Chadwick, 11 16, 1227 V. Clark, 2365 1}. Dennison, 249, 252,2015,2262 V. Gallup, 1115, 1116, 1120, 1121 V. Galop, 2267 V. Hays, 194, 252, 1004, 1071, 2262, 2273 2'. Jewett, 1051, 1138, 1150, '154, 1155 V. Jones, 1072, 1 1 16, 2252, 2259 •v. Kearney, 401, 471, 1516, 2300, 2301, 2358 •v. Poucher, 20, 203, 205, 206, 22S, 402, 447. 471 z/. Radcliff, 547, 548, 2igo, 2193, 2195, 2ig6, 2200, 2201, 2262 V. Read, 1076 V. Smith, 1067, 1071, 1076, 1098, 1099, 1 108 V. Snyder, 1139, 1517 V. Van Rensselaer V. Whitbeck, 1139 Van Rensselaer, Jackson ex d. t/. Andrew, 565 Van Rensselaer, Jackson ex d. -u. Collins, 488, 1146, 1 148 Van Reynegan?'. Revalk, 1489, 1454 Vansant v. Alleman, 1998 V. Allman, 2106 7'. Allmon, 2157 Van Schaick, Jackson ex d. v. Davis, 1108 Van Schaik 7/. Third Ave, R. R. Co, 1108, 1 109 Van Schaik, Jackson ex d. Vincent, ii40j i*44. 1 146, 1 149 Van Schuyverr-. Mufford, 1982 Van Sickle %>. Haines, 2224 Van Thormley i>. Peters, 2038, 2126 Vantilberg z/. Shann. 2203 Van Tuyl v. Van Tuyl, 596, 752 Van Vetchen v. Keator, 76 Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 753, 754, 756 Van Vocrhiss v. Hyatt, 782 Van Vronker v. Eastman, 744, 803, 814, 891, 922 V. Van Vronker, 778 Van Wagenen z'. Brown, 810, 2097 V. Van Wagener, 2029 Van Wagner zf. Nan Nostrand, 1094, 2258 Van Wert v. Benedict, 1837 Van Wickle &. Landry, 1489, 1506 Vanzant v. Vanzant, 1405, 1450, 1462, 1472, 1473, i475j 14791 1506 Van Wicklenz'. Paulson, 2251, 2252 Varick v. Edwards, 1:781 V. Jackson, 210, 211 V. Smith, 197, 2323, 2324, 2327, 2328 Varnerz/. Rice, 2272 Varney v. Howes, 2040 •V. Stevens, 489, 504, 505, 740, 744 Varnum v. Abbott, 1925, 1967, 1919 V. Leek, 1894 7'. Meserve, 2083, 2164 Vartie v. Underwood, 818 Vasey v. Board of Trustees, 1450, 1460, 1469, 1478 Vason V. Ball, 1993, 1999, 2063, 2078 Vasquez v. Ewing, 2192 Vass V. Wales, 1051, 1052 Vassar v. Camp, 1243 Vasser v. Vasser, 1697 Vauduyn v. Hepner, 977 Vaughan v. Bacon, 1912, 1913 V. Blanchard, 1166, 1167 V. Dickes, 414, 418 V. Menlove, 2232 V. Nurfeesboro. 3 V. Thompson, 1481 V. Tracy, 1047 V. Vanderstegen, 1821, 1825, 1826 Vaughan, In re, v. Thomas, 1687 Vaughen v. Haldeman, log, 121, 134, 138, 139 Vaughn -v. Atkins, 830 7'. Hancock, 46 7'. Locke, 2250 •V. Lovejoy, 271 V. Parr, 2344 Vauxz/. Parke, 254. 300, 500, 1577, 1606, 1675, 1753 Veale v. Pryor, 982 Veasey v. Graham, 2013 Veeder 7/. Fonda, 2158 Vegely v. Robinson, 1316,1322, 1324, 1327, 1330, ^45 Veghte V. The Raritan Water Power Co., 2212, 2213, 2240 Vehue v. Moser, 78 Vetle V. Elodgett, 1622, 1761 Venable v. Beauchamp, 1738, 1973, 1974, 1990; igOi 7). McDonald, 1290, 1294 Vendever Admrs. v. Freeman, 1703 Vennum v. Babcock, 2055 Ventress v. Collins, 1425 Venus, The, 1456 Verdier v. Youngblood, 502, 532 Vermilyaz/. Austin, T174 Vermont v. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1862 Vermont Mining Co. w. Windham Bank, 2354 Vernam v. Smith, 1080, 1213, 1221 Vernon's Case, 854, 936,951, 956, 957, 958, 960 Vernon v. Bethell, 2054 7'. Smith, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1082, 2118 V. Valk, 2333 V. Vernon, 8g8, 936, 940, 941, 954, 955, 1629 Verplank t*. Sterry, 959, 1625, 2315 V. Wright, 1076 Vertner v. Humphrey, 720 Verry v. Robinson, 925 Vetter's Appeal, 2250, 2257 Vick V. Ayers, 1292 z'. Vicksburg, 1985 Vickery v. Dickson, 2060 Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 1247 Vidal V. Commagere, 2282 V. Gerard's Exrs., 2348 V. Girard's Exrs., 1604. 1657, 1658, 1681 V. Girard, 266, 1541, 155^ Viele V. Judson, 2108, 2109 V. Osgood, 31, 35, 38 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXl Viele V. Troy, etc., R. Co., 1697 Viely, Jackson ex d., v. Cuerdeu, 1273 Villa w. Rodriguez, 2169 V, Rodroguez, i66[ Village of Brooklyn v. Smith, 68,70 Village of Delhi v. YoumaLis, 7230 Villen V. Beaumont, 1025 Villers w. Beaumont, 1791 Villiers v, ViUiei-s, 288, 1563, 1594 Villines v. Norfleat, 1621 Vincent f, Bishop, 1831 V. Bishop of Sodoer, etc., 1831 V. Corbin, 1006, 1300, 1335 V. Ennys. 1844 V. Hallowell, 2272 V. Spooiier, 897, 933, 951, 956 Viner v. Vaughn, 495, 561 Vinety v. Abbott, 1791, 1792, 1798 Vintner v. Bix, 271 Violett V. Brookman, 267 Visager zk Schofield, 1036 Visard v. Longden, 955 Viscount v. Morris, 2127, 2128 Voe V. Handy, 2132 Voegt V. Resor, 1 164 Voelckner v. Hudson, 737, 836, 837 Vogle V. Brown, 1890 V. Ripper, 2133 Vogler, Re, 1483 V. Geiss, 224s V, Montgomery, 1415, 1481, 1502 Voight V. Resor, 2260 Voisey, Ej: parte, 1027 Vole V. Handy, 2076 Volentiiie v. Johnson, 1922 Voller V. Carter, 417, 423, 424, 444 VoUz V. Harris, 2267 Vou V. Brashead, 2358 Voohees z/. McGinnis, in, 112, 113, 114, 117, 127, 144, 1186 V. Presbyterian Church, 31, 38, 39, 40, 990, 1549, 1551, i6ig, 1644 V. Presbyterian Church of Amsterdam, 646, 970, 1617 Voorhis v. Freeman, 104, 106, in, J13, 114, 126, 127, 130, 133, 135, 138, 20Z2 Vorebeck v. Rowe, 53, 54, 55 Voiisz'. Renshaw, 1867 Vornberg z'. Owens, 1381, 1515 Vose V. Handy, 2100, 2105, 2107, 2132, 2357 Voss V. King, 12 14 Vost V. Handy, 799 Vredenburg v. Morris, 975, 1225 Vreelau v. Jacobus, 728, 818 Vreeland v. Blarcom, 2166 V. Van Blarcom, 2068 V. Vreeland, 596, 1361 Vroom V. Van Horn, 1835 Vrooman zi. McKaig, 1213, 1315, 1316 Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1070, 1071, 1075, 1078 w. Wabash Canal v. Brett, 983 Wade's Case, 1865, 1906 Wade V. American Colonization Society, 1555 V. Baker, 1022, 1023 V. Beldmeir, 2130, 2134 V. City of Newborn, 996, 1029, 1042 V, Colbert, 1033 V. Coope, 2772 V. Greenwood, 2005 V. Halligan, 1067, 1080, 1081 z>. Howard, 805, 2128 V. Johnston, 117 V, Jones, 1514 7'. Lauber, 920 V. Malloy, 504, 509 V. Miller, 731, 949 V. Paget, 164, 1579, 1580 V. Wade, 1420, 1433 Waddell v. Cook, 1246 V. Glassell, 1698, 1701 V. Hewett, 2165 Waddingham v. Loker, 1665, 1690 Wadham v. Marlowe, 2263 Wadhams v. Swan, 2301 Wadleigh v. Jauvrin, 103, 104, 124, 127, 131, 132 Wadley v. Janvin, 79 Wadman v. Calcraft, 1871 Wadsworth v. Lorangu, 2045 V. Lyon, 2068 V. Tillotson, 2224, 2225, 2226 V. Wadsworth, 214, 215, 672, 673, 1657, 2014 V. Wendell, 501 V. Williams, 805, 808, 2130, 2134 Wadsworth, Jackson ex d., v. Wendell, 501 Wadsworthville School z*. Meetze, 1144, 1309 Wafer z*. Mocato, 1158, 1871, 1872 V. Pratt, 2291 Wagar %>. Stone, 1999, 2076 Wager v. Wager, 344, 345 Waggeuer 71. Waggener, 1729 Waggoner v. Jermaine, 1199 V. Speck, 1284 Wagner v. Bissell, 118, 458 V. Cleveland, in V. Cleveland & I. R. Co., ii6 V. Hanna, 2211, 2215, 221S V. Varner, 2282 V. White, 1168 WagstafE v. Smith, 1562, 1655, 1656 Wahl V. Barroll, 1164 Wain V. Warlters, 2267 Wainborough v. Schank, 522 Wainer z/. Milford Mutual Ins. Co., 631, 2113 Wainewright v. Elwell, 1574 Wainscott v. Silvers, 1181, 1183, 12S1, 12G4 Wainwright zi. Hardesty, 511 Wait's Appeal, 1023 Wait V. Belding, 335, 342 V. Day, 1549 V. Maxwell, 986, 987, 1032, 2344, 2245 V. Wait, 711, 712, 713, 725, 748, 749, 767, 771. 772, 773j 9»9» 920. i3.';9.234i Waite zi. Bowee, i9r9 V. Paget, 2096 Wake V. Hall, 61 V. Wake, 946 Wakefield v. Buccleuch, 91, 92 ZI. Duke of Buccleuch, 2238 V. Mining Co.. 1151 Wakeman ?'. Roach, 891, 927 ' V. Walker, 1040 Walbridge v. Pruden, 2274 Walcot V. Botfield, 265 :'. McKiiiney, iggg, 2078, 2084 Walcott V. Sullivan, 2 1 10 Waiden 2/. Bodley, 1144, 1293, 1296 V. Karr, 1783 z>. Sherburne, 1242 V. Skinner, Exrs., 161 1 Waldman v. Broder, 1902 Waldo V. Hall, 1077, 2262 V. Rice, 2075, 2094, 2175 Waldrum v. Cheek, 782 Wale V. Hill, 842 Wales V. Bowdish, 1820 V. Coffin, 591, 901, 911, 1886, igirj, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1940, 1941 V. Mellen, 2032, 2063, 2077, 2079 V. Sherwood, 2167 V. Webb, 2071 Wales' Admrs. v. Bowdish Exr., 1677 Walker's Case, 640, 1117,2268 Walker v. At water, 2056 z'. Baxter, 811, 2097 V. Beal, 1658 7'. Burrows, 1626 V. Carringlon, 1621 V. CoUrai:e, 2365 CCXXll TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Walker v. Crowder, 1795 V. Peaver, 721 V. Denne, 202 V. Dilworth, 641 V. Doane, 717 V. Dunshee, 415, 2288 V. Ellis, 1309, 1337 V. Engler, 1138, 1156 V. Fitts, looi, 1233, 1234 V. Furbush, 1275, 1307, 1328, 1342, 1343 V. Gatlin, 197 V. Gilbert, 2366 V. Giles, 1275 V. Grand Rapids Flouring Mill Co., 116 V. Griswold, 2074, 2182 V. Hall, I5q3, 1632, iggo z/. Harper, 1213 V. Jarvis, 2149, 2156 z*. Johnson, 2000, 2078 V. Kee, 2107 •V. Keile, 2363 V. King, 2078, 2127, 2130, 2138, 2172 V. Lincoln, 2322 V. Locke, 1589, 1591 V. Matthers, 2124 V. Milne, 42 V. Paine, 2021 •v. Physick, 1069 v. Pitts, 1231 v. Pritchard, 1815 V. Quiggs, 1810 V Ricliardson, 983 V. Schindel, 143 ■V. Schreiber, 2106 •V, Schuyler, 776, 806, 823, 841, 842, 844 D. Sherman, 78, 97, 104, 108, 109, no, 112, 113, 117, 133, 135, 1186 •V. Sharpe, 1335, 1339 3/. Symonds, 1733 w. Tipton, 982 •V. Tucker, 1152 V. Vincent, 249, 348, 1858 V. Walker, 334, 745, 762, 792, 853, 856, 857» 905. 955. 1538, 1616, 17S1, 2035 V, Wheeler, 1870, 1871 V. Whiting, 1614 z>, Williams, 2007 V. Wilson, 1280 Wall ZK Colshead, 76 V. Fife, 1890 V. Goodenough, 1140, 1146 7/. Hickey, 2035 V. Hill, 841, 844 V. Hill's Heirs, 986 V. Hinds, no, 120, 121, 122, 128, 129, 130, 140, 146. 563, 564, 1084, io36, 1108, 1117, jgoi, 2263, 2264 V. Lee, 33, 35, 36 V. Maguire, 414, 415, 423 V. Mason, 2128, 2129 V. Shindler, 2297 V. Wall, 2316 Wallace -v. Blair, 811, 2097 V. Bowens, 779, 1647 V. Carpenter, 985, 986, 1030, 1031 V. Coston, 1376, 1562, 1674 v. Duffield, 518, 1615, 1623, 1648, 1649, 1651, 1697, 1698, 1699. 2295 V. Fletcher, 1913, 2291 ■V. Furber, 2166 •u. Goodhall, 2104 ■ V. Hall, 718, 733, 734, 735, 739, 741, S34, 838 ■V. Harmstad, 2253 z/. Harmstea.d, 156, 163, 195, 226, 1004, 1227 •V. Headley, 983, 985 ■V. Lent, 1109, iiio, n68, 1200 V. Lewis, 103 1 •V. Long Island R. Co., 1019 ■V. McCuUough, 1044 ■V. Wainwright, 1574, 1590, 1592 Wallace, Jackson ex d., v. Carpenter, 985, 986, 1030, 103 1 Wallach v. Chesley, V. Van Riswick, 236, 278 Waller v. Mardus, 731, 734, 735* 74^ V Spots, 2099 V. Waller's Admrs., 885, 1314 Walley's Heirs v. Kennedy, 2324 Walling V. Aiken, 2140 V. Burgess, 1956 Wallingsford v. Allen, 647, 648, 2345 Wallis V. Doe, 741 V. Harrison, 2213 V. Hodson, 2213, 2280 V. Manhattan, 2345 V. Wallis, 236,2314,2316, 2317,2319, 2349, 2359 V. Wilson, 1662 Walls z/. Atcheson, 1163 V. Bard, 2132 V. Preston, 970, 992, 1230, 1231, 1233, 1234, 1238 Wallwyn v. Coutts, 1793 Walmesley v. Jewett, 1844 V. Milne, 112, 117, 120, 126, 132, 133, 137, 1 186 Walphal V. Heath, 1026 Walsh V. Horine, 1503 V. Kelly, 773, 920, 956, 960 V. Matthews, 1858 V. Pemberton, 2250 V. Philadelphia F. Assoc, 2113, 2114 V. Phillips, 2103 V. Powers, 2on V. Reiss, 855, 881, 1411 V. Rutger's Fire Ins. Co., 208S V. Whitcomb, 1843 tK Wilson, 840, 843, 844, 891 V. Young, 1365 Walsingham's Case, 204, 205, 370, 372, 384, 386, 3S7. 391,457.627 Walston V. Buyan, 1230 Walter v. Alexander, 1139 V. Eould, 455 V. Dewey, 2253, 2256 V. Greenward, 1893 V. Hedge, 648 Walters v. Jordan, 773, 887, 892, 894, 895, 921 V. People, 1386, 1416, 1419, 1438, 1442, 1443. 1444; 1445. M54. 1456, I457» 1458, 1495 Walthall V. Goree, 1933, 1951 V. Rives, 2ogi Waltham Bank v. Waltham, 43 Waltmeyer v. Baughman, 2296 Walton's Estate, g38 Walton z/. Cronly, 800, 1117, 2042 V. Cronly's Admrs., 1116 V, File, 1271, 1281, 1290, 1357 V. Hargroves, 804, 832, 2006 V. Hollywood, 2089 ZK Johnson, 2081 V. Jordan, 51 V. Tims, 1500 V. Walton, 473,661 V. Waterhouse, 1068, 1107, 1176, 1179, 1183 7/. Withington, 2088 V. Wray, 122, 126 Walz V. Rhodes, 1083. iigi, 1201 Wamble v. Battle, 2005 Wamburzee v. Kennedy, 1782 Wanamaker w. McCauUy, 11 57 Wansborough v. Maton, 123 Waples V. Harman, 415, 418 V. Marsh, 2333 Warburtoh v. Sands, 1663 Ward V. Amory,344, 486, 1553, 1583, 1597, 1796, 1815 V, Arch, 1783 V. Armstrong, 1610, 164S V. Bull, 1126, 1175 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. ccxxin Ward r. Carter, 2095 •u. Crotty, 647 V. Eden, 2109 V. Egmont, 2359 V. Fagin, iiq6, 1197 V. Fuller, 208, 209, 492, 764 V. Hugh, 1426 V. Kelsey, 992, 1084, 1086 V. Kilpatrick, 105, 106, 109, iii, 112, 114 7'. Kitchen, 1721 V. Krum, 1931 V. Lewis, 1600, 1734 z/. Mayfield, 1425 V, Neal, 2223 V. New York, 1248 •u. Peloubet, 1631 V. Seymour, 2136, 2138 V. Shallett, 934 V. Sheppard, 550, 553, 555, 556, 558, 743 V. Thurston, 1039 V. Ward, 1024, 1834, 1945, 2247, 2303 V. Warren, 1913 V. Wilson, 2267 Warden v. Adams, 2102, 2105, 2111 V. Enslen, 2175 V. Richards, 1662, 1814, 1885 7'. Southern Ry. Co., 224 Wardner v. Hardwin, 1544 Ward well 7/. Bassett, 237 w. Barrett, 2319 Ware v. Cann, 249 V. Cowles, 1698 V. Hall, 2252, 2259 V. Murph, 76 V. Owens, 721, 846 V. Polhill, 95, 1811 z*. Richardson, 292,294, 1534, 1550, 1551, 156X, 1565, 1566, 1574, 1654, 1797 V. Washington, 760, 784, 821, 823 Warfield v. Fisk, 2041 V. Lindell, 1913, 1914, 1997 V. Warfield, 845 Waring &. King, 1290, 1317 V. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 1318, 1326 2/. Middleton, 309, 331 V. Slinguff, 2273 V. Smyth, 2000, 2076 V. Smythe, 2063 ■ V. Sombom, 2069 V. Waring, 1753 Wark V. Willard, 2080, 2364 Warley v. Warley, 511 Warn v. Brown, 293 Waraecke v. Lembca, 1670 Warner z/. Abbey, 1230, 123 1 V. Bacon, 1290 V. Bates, 346, 1627, 1629 V. Bennet, 259,266, 269, 1849, i860, 1870 V. Blakeman, 2161 V. Brooks, 2027 V. Caulk, 59 V. Crosby, 1479, 1506 V. Crouch, 2345 V. Hale, 996, 1327, 1329, 1334, 1340, 2270 V. Gouverneur, 210S V. Hitchins, 1068, 1107, 1181 7/. Hoisiugton, 1237 v. Howell, 1837 V. Kenning, 142 V. Tanner, 475, 478, 481 V. Van Alstyne, 777, 802, 804, 2005, 2006 V. Willard, 1824 v. Willington, 1000 Warner, Doe d., v. Browne, 1307, 1308, 1313, 1320, 1336 Warrall v. Jacobs, 648 Warren v. Aller, 1247 V. Blake, 2207, 2241, 2244 V. Chambers, 2293 V. Childs, 207, 211 V. Fenn, 2004, 2006 v. Fredericks, 1976 Warren v. Henshaw, 1904, 1922 V, Homestead, 2102, 2103 V. Jeniiinson, 2128, 2129 V, Leland, 53, 54, 55, 537 V. Lewis, 2038, 2054 V. Lynch, 501. 2339, 2363 z'. Lyons, 1049 V. Moriis, 918, q44 V. Prescott, 1338 V. Rudall, 573 V. Sennett, 2154 V. Torney, 2273 7). Twiller, 785 V. Van Alstyne, 832 7'. Wagner, 1168, 1175 V. Warren, 2097, 2127, 2164 V. Webb, 318, 534 Warrender v. Warrender, 753 Warriner zj. Rogers, 1587 Warrington v. Warrington, 1939 Wartenby v. Moran, 1004, 1138 Warter v. Hutchinson, 1596, 1607, 1797 Warwick z/. Bruce, 50, 51 V. Warwick, 1621, 1759 Washabaugh v. Entriken, 2293 Washburn, Re, 2266 Washburn v. Burnham, 1047 V. Burns, 1024, 1944, 1945 V. Cutter, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2298 V. Oilman, 2225 V. Merrills, 2035, 2046 V. Sproat, 62, 63, 123. 565, 1367 Washington v. Conrad, 1140 Washington's Exrs. v. Abraham, 76 Washington, A. & G. R. Co. v. Alexandria & N. R. Co., 1599 Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall, 68, 70, 71, 2224 Washington Ins. Co. v. Kelley, 2115 V. Kelly, 2113, 2117 Wass V. Buckman, 590, 603, 607, 608 Wassell 7'. Tunnah, 1379, 1380, 1483, 1514 Watefall v. Penistone, 125 Waterford v. People, 706 Waterman v. Clark, 1139 z'. Curtis, 2060 V. Greene, 305, 310 V. Matterson, 2077 v. Matteson, 688, 1998, 2186, 2187 ■v. Soper, 56, 57 Waters v. Gooch, 822, 841, 845, 864, 866, 867, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878 7'. Margerum, 443, 445 V. Taxewell, 645, 1561 Watertown v. Mayo, 4, 5 Water Street, Re, 1129 Waters v. Groom, 2163 V. Hubbard, 2072 V. Lilley, 2213, 2214 V. Stewart, 2000 V. Tazewell, 1857 V. Randall, 2050, 2054, 2055,2159, 2168 V. Young, '1006, 1335 Waterson v. Devol, iggg V. Kirkwood, 2175 Waterworks Co. v. Burkhart, 73 Watkins, hi re, 864 Watkins v. Blatschinski, 1503 V. Eaion, 1921 V. Gregory, 2040, 2053, 2083 %>. Holman, 278, 279, 1291, 2091, 2092, 2224, 2333 V. Holman's Lessee, 368 z*. Overby, 1499 V. Peck, 2225, 2226, 2227, 2229, 2242 V. Quarles, 315 v. Sears, 401, 418, 447 V. Specht, 1785, 1797, 1885 V. Thornton, 598, 599, 603, 615, 703 V. Wassell, 2300 V. Watkins, 767, 773, 920 V. Wyatt, 2018, 2020 CCXXIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Watris z-. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 122, 130, 145, 147, 1137, liS?) liBti, iiSg Watson, Ex Parte, 1240, 1244 Watson V. Bioren, 2218 V. Bondruant, 21 19 z». Clendenin, 802, 925, 2365 V. Dickens, 2039, 2078 •V. Donnelly, 221, 222 V. Doyle, 1437 V. Dundee, 2107 V. Erb, 1620 V. Fletcher, 11 56 •u. Gray, 2235 V. Gregg, 517, 1916, 2358 V. Hayes, 1637 V. Hill, 1901 zi. Hunter, 573 V. Hunsworth Hospital, 1037 V James, 1832 V. Jones, 1658 V. Le Row, 2036, 2123 V. Master, 1008 V. Mercer, 2333 V. Mayrant, 1614 V. McEachin, 1287 V. Mercer, 671, 904 V. O'Hern, 1002 V. Pearson, 1797 V. Penn, 2250 V. Pennsylvania, 2252 V. Powell, 331, 333 V. Spence, 2149, 2151 V. Spratley, 817 V. Thompson, 1623 V. Watson, 580, 581, 589, 591, 624, 628, 629, 634, 636, 637, 652, 672, 864, S67, 868, 8(3g, 874, 1360 V. Wells, 2005 Watt's Appeal, 2300 Watt V. Watt, 2152 Watt, Doe d., ?'. Morris, 1347 Watts V. Ainsworth, 999 V. Ball, 598, 611, 679, 689, 1577, 1741 V. Clardy,'4ii, 413, 415 V. Coffin, 1083, 2065, 2191 V. Cole, 443, 445, 464, 465 V. Corey, 920 V. Gordon, 1424 V. Kinney, 2177 zi. Miller, 1469 V. Symes, 2127 V. Waddle, 36S, 2058, 2289 Waughsv. Carver, 1242, 1243, 1244 71. Riley. 673, 2014 Waugh's Exrs. 7*. Waugh, 281 Wauson v. Hawkins, 2157 Way V. Holton, 2251 V. Raymond, 1292 V. Reed, 1050, 1069, 1072, H15 z>. Way, 840 Way's Trust, In re, 1791, 1792 Wayman v. Cochrane, 2106 V. Jones, 1734 V. Southard, igi6 Wayne v. Hanham, 2159 V. Myddleton, 1832 V. Steamboat General Pike, 1209 Wealde v. Lower, 214 Weare v. Linnell, 1652 V. Van Meter, 1883 Wearce v. Pierce, 2025, 2059 Weatherbee v. Bennett, 730 Weatherby v. Baker, loio, 2259 V. Slack, 2179, 2180 Weatherhead's Lessee v. Baskerville, 201 Weathersby w. Sleeper, 117, 122, 131 V. Weathersby, 2053 Weaver v. Barden, 1746 7'. Belcher, 2065 ■V. Crenshaw, 717, 838 V. Cregg, 714, 725, 785, 796, 828, 886, S93 V. Jones, 1259, 2271 Weaver v. Leiman, 1781 V. Sturtevant, 716, 717, 731, 732, 733, 736, 739. 741 V, Toogood, 2154 V. Wible, 1990 %t. Wood, 999 Webb, Estate of, 1593 Webb, Re, 2266 Webb V. Bird, 2291 V, Boyle, 718, 734, 741 ^- Byng, 324, 41 J". 4^2 V. Cowley, 1398 V. Danforth, 1905 Webb, Doc d., v. Dixon, 1008 V. Earl of Shaftesbury, 1693 V. Evans, 955, 965 V. Fair'maner, 1005, 2256 V. Holt, 1428 V, Hoselton, 1999, 2012, 2078 ■u. Lexington First Colored Baptist Church, 689, 6go V. Meloy, 811 V, Mexan, 2147 V. Pond, iioi %>. Portland Co., 2225 V. Richardson, 2295 V. Robinson, 2005, 2007 v. Russell, 1028, 1069, 1 100 z-. Seekins, 12S1 V. Shaftesbury, 1845 V. Smith, 711 •V. Townsend, 552, 807, 833, 845 7'. Woods, J 629 Webber, Jackson ex d., v. Harsen, 981 7'. Sherman, J132, 1254 Webbs %>. Hynes, 517, 2292 Weber v. Anderson, 2298 V. Short, 1398 V. Weber, 1655 Webster v. Blodgett, 996 V. Bowman, 2309 V. Calden, 2084 V. Clark, 999 V. Cooper, 1655, 1710, 1711, 1796, 1797, 1849, i860, 1866 V. Ellingsworth, 692 V. Ellsworth, 703 V. Hall, 2364 zi. Howe Machine Co., 2056 V. King, 1620 7/. Nichols, 1143, 1156, 1316, 2261, 2262, 2272 7/. Parker, 974, 975 V. Potter, 141 V. Stevens, 2236 V. Upton, 1581 V. Vandeventer, 1662, 1878, 1885, 1900, 1966, 1969, 2TOI, 2146 z). Vandewater, 1881 V, Webster, 478, 541, 545, 546. 547, 549, 550. 552. 555, 557) 559, 5*^4) 5<^^j ^'^^ V. Woodford, 1032 7>. Zielly, 45 Wedderburn v. Wedderbum, 76, 1621, 1715, 1782, 1783, 1784, 2081 Wedge V. Moore, 728, 764 Weed ZI. Beebe, 2149 7/. Crocker, 2255 V. Lindsay, 994, 1281 V. Panama R. Co.. 1195 Weed Sewing maching Co. v. Emerson, 2068, 2070, 2152, 2301, 2345 Weekly v. Weekly, 42, 44 Weeks v. Bowerman, 1054 V. Comwell, 1689 7'. Eaton, 2100, 2103 V. Haas, 1651 z>. Hull, 2256 7'. Sego, 257 V. Tomes, 2152 V. White, 2308 Weetjen v. Vibbard, 1731, 1734 References are to pages. TABLE OF cases; ccxxv Weeton v. Woodcock, 131, 145, 146, 1224 Wegg z*. Villers, 1571 Weichselbaum v. Curlett, 1214, 1222 Weide v. Geh!, 2045, 2047 Weidman, Jackson ex d., v. Hubble, 1074 Weidner v. Foster, 2064 Weigall z/. Waters, 1182 Weight V. Freeman. 2303 Weil V. Golden, 2056 V. Raymond, 975 Weill V. Lucerne, 2303 V. Thompson, 123 Weimar ?'. Fath, 1S42 Weiner 7'. Heintz, 2151 Weinsteine v. Harrison, igoi Weir V. Groat, 2012 V. Humphries, 615, 703, 776, 777, 778, 826 v. Simpson, 1083 V. Smith, 487 V. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 197, 2325, 2326, 2327 V. Tate, 598, 760, 762, 763, 778, 7U0, 814, 877. 885 Weisbrod z>. Daenicke, 1483, 1484 Weise v. Welsh, 633, 641 Weiser 7/. Weiser, 1971, iq89, 1991 Weisinger v. Murphy, 590, 591, 628, 651, 702, 1366, 1369, 1370 Welch V. Adams, 1220 V. Agar, 1980 Z'. Allen, 289, 1594, 1596, 1655, 1796 V. Anderson. 941, 947, 1981 V. Beers, 2181, 2183 V. Chambers, 699 V. Chandler, 658, 689, 701 V. Clark, 1247 V, Duckins, 760, 783, 826, 893 V. Button, 2322 V. Foster, 2318 V. Meyers, 2266 V. Nash, 57 V. Priest, 2100, 2103 V. Rice, 1407, 1462, 1463, 1472, 1473, 1475, 1482 V. Welch, 1371 Welch's Heirs v. Chandler, 601 Welcome v, Hess, 1160, 1161 Weld V. Oliver, 1905 V. Sabin, 810, 2136 V. Traip, 993 V. Williams, 402, 418, 443, 447 Weldon, Jackson ex. d., v. Harrison, 1104, 1107, 1155 Welford v. Beasley, 998 Wellborn t. Williams, 2007 Weller v. Baker, 1366, 1368, 1369, 1370 V. Rolason, 289, 290 v. Snover, 190 V. Weller, 690, 691, 781, 815, 820, 826, 889, 141 1 Welles V. Cowles, 42, 43, 44, 1023 71. Olcott, 401, 411, 412, 448 Wellford v. Beasley, 1043 V. Chancellor, 1643 Welling V. Ryerson, 2173 Wellington v. Wellington, 373, 418 Wellock V, Hammond, 1848 Wells V. Bannister, 123, 142 V. Beall, 866 7'. Calnan, 1099 V. Castles, 1066, 1084, 1086, »io7, 1126, 1127, 1166, 1167, 1175. 1604, 1753 V. Caywood, 646, 895, 1938 V. Deming, 2260 V. Evans, 1042 V. Hart, 2004 V. Heath, 1594, 1597 V. Jackson, 2298 7'. Lewis, 1663, 1842 7/. Mason, 1079, 1149, 1172, 1220, 1291 V. McCall, 500, 1673 V. Moore, 83 1 Wells V. Morrow, 2007, 2047 v. Morse, 2176 V. Newbold, 447, 463, 471 V. Prince, 207 V. Robinson, 1644, 1760 V. Sheerer, 1140, 1212 V. Thompson, 603, 605, 612,613, 633, 641, 658, 664, 665, 686, 689, 690 V. Wilmington, 1247 Wells, Jackson ex d., v. Welld, 536 Welp V. Cunther, 2067 Welsh V. Foster, 236, 2317, 2319 V. Phillips, 1993, 2102 V. Usher, 2003 V. Wilson, 1797 V. Woodbury, 1815 Welton V. Devine, 779, 1647 Wendell v. Crandall, 226, 227, 228, 471, doi V. Jackson, 2357 V. Johnson, 1283 •V. Moulton, 211 V. New Hampshire Bank, 2147 Wentworth v. First Parish of Canton, 31, 35, 36, 37. 38, 39. 40 V. Miller, 1236 V. Philpot, 2242 V. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 1234 V. Remick, 1920, 1936 V. Wentworth, 523, 956, 1639, 1652, 1699, 1763 Wertz s Appeal, 2126 Wescott V. Delano, 144 V. Edmunds, 1655, 1744 Wesley University v. Troy Conference Acad- emy, 1019 West V. Barney, 1843, 1844 V. Fitz, 1797 V. Flannagan, 1307 V. Fritche, 1266 V. Hart, 1 106 V. Hendrix, 2044, 2053, 2054 V. Jones, 1733 V. Kelly, 169S, 1701 V. Moore, 724 V. Randall, 2365 V. Stewart, 62 V. Ward, 1426, 1427 West Cambridge v. Lexington, 212 West Coast Lumber Co. v. Apfield, 11S8 West Cumberland Iron Co. v. Kenyon, 200 West Transportation Co. v. Lansing, 1075 West Virginia Trans. Co. v. Ohio R. P. L. Co., 2214 West River Bank v. Gale, 143 1, 1434, 1457, 1499 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 2327 West Side Savings Bank v. Newton, 1166, n68 Westbrook v. Eager, 49, 50, 51, 52 ■ V. Gleason, 2125 Westcott V. Campbell, 841, 844 Westerfield v. Bried, 2060 Western v. Macdermott, 267 V. Russell, 1758 Western Bank v. Kyle, 1059 Western Bank of Scotland v. Tallman, 2014, 2016 Western Ins. Co. v. Riker, 2116 Western Mfg. Co. v. Peytonia, 2301 Western National Bank's Appeal, 2235 Western N. C. R. Co. v. Deal, 122, 129 Western R. Co. v. Babcock, 1697 Western Transportation Co. v. Lansing, 1003, 1006, 1087, 1088, 1307, 1320, 1336 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Caldwell, 2082 V. Fain, 996, 1262, 1263, 1274, 1283, 1304, 1329 Westervelt v. Cregg, 2324 V. Matheson, 1697 V. People, 486 V. Pinckney, 50 Westfall V. Hintz, 92S 7'. Jones, 2109 CCXXVl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Westfall V. Lee, goo Westgage v. Wixon, 2021, 2022 Westgate v. Wixon, 139, 140, 141 Westlake v. De Graw, 1054, 1175 V. Wheat, 1689 Westmeath v. Westmeath, 648 Westmorland v. Foster, 2250 V. Porter, 2267 Westmoreland & Cambria Natural Gas Co. v. De Witt. 83, 84, 100, T139 Westmoreland Coal Co. Appeals, 494, 495 Westmoreland, Doe d., v. Smith, 13 14 Westn Univ. v. Robinson, 2191 Weston V. Alden, 2225 V. Arnold, 2236 V. Barker, 1600, 1672 V. Hunt, 234 V. Metropolitan Asylum District Man- agers, 1 141 •V. Weston, 104 V. Wilson, 2331 Westover v. Chapman, 1715 Wetherbee v. Bennett, 1095 V. Ellison, 79 Wetherell v. Howells, 1223 Wetherby v. Slack, 2154 Wethersby v. Sleeper, 123 Wetmore v. Kissan, 898, 957 V. Laird, 2365 V. Porter, 1798 Wetz-z/. Beard, 1378, 1459 Wetzel V. Mayer, 2272 Whale V. Booth, 1667 Whalen v. Cadman, 1400, 1401 Whaley & Others v. Jenkins, 309 V. Whaley, 1150, 1348, 1349 Whalin v. White, 1125, 1169, 1219, 2156 Whalley v. Eldridge, 2175 V. Small, 2123 Wharf V. Howell, 2031, 2044, 2168 Wharton v. Moore, 2067 V. Taylot, 1509 V. Wharton, 445 Whatman v. Gibson, 267, 2214 Whayman, Doe d., v. Chaplin, 1027 Wheatland v. Dodge, 417, 424 Weatley v. Baugh, 2226, 2230 V. Calhoun, 766, 767, 787, 830, 1671 z*. Purr, 1587 V. Thomas, 277 Wheatley's Heirs v. Calhoun, 803, 804, 805, 818 Wheaton v. Andress, 320, 333, 535 V. East, 985, 2343 V. Gates, 32, 35 V. Peters, 149, 7^7 Whedon v. Gorham, 1516 Wheeland v. Swartz, 2168 Wheeldon, Doe d., v. Paul, 1154 Wheeler v. Atkins, 257 V. Bedell, 123 V. Caryl, 1626 V. Clark, 2236 V. Clutterbuck, 2286 2*. Conrad, 996, 998 w. Cowan, 1274, 1304 V. Crawford, 1083 •u. Dunlap, 2 V. Earle, 1141 V. Factors & Traders' Ins. Co., 2119 V. Frankenthal, 996, gg8, 1013, 1323 V. Gorham, 486 V. Hamey, 1903 V. Hill, 1121 V. Hotchkiss, 592, 624, 661, 662, 670 V. Hughes, 2110 z/. Kirkendall, 1205 V. Kirtland, 532, 726, 797, 818, 893, 921, 922 V. Montefiore, 97S V. Morris, 799, 800, 926, 2173 v. New Brimswick C. R. Co., 2302 V. Perry, 1720 Wheeler w. Redding, 1512 V. Reynolds, 1590, 1702 •V. Sage, 1586, 1645 V. Stone, 2091, 2092 V. Thoroughgopd, 980 V. Walker, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1855, 1856, 1862 V. West, 995 V. Wheeler, 1021 V. Whitall, 1870 V. Willard, 2136, 2138 Wheelock v. Dozzens, 706 7). Warschauer, 1126, ii6g, 1172, 1220 Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 465, 1016, 2035, 2354 Whelan v. Reilly, 2161 V. Whelan, 959, 1696, 2350 Whelpdale v. Cookson, 1767 Whetmore v. Kissam, 985 Whetstone v. Bury, 1558, 1559, 1583 V. Davis, 1314 V. Saintbury, 299 Whett V. Whetstone's Exrs., 1783 Whichcote v. Lyie, 1674 Whilden v. Wbilden, 916, 918, 934, 936, 944 Whilton ZK Whilton, 1924 Whipley v. Dewey, 146, 1138 Whipple v. Adams, 1632 V. Farrar, 1751 •v. Foote, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 2334 Whiskou V. Clayton, 338 Whistler v. Hicks, 729, 730, 1094 V. Newman, 1035 V. Webster, 948 Whitaker v. Brown, 88, 2241 V. Cawthorne, 1268 V. Greer, 867, 875 Whitbank's Appeal, 1581 Whitbeck, Jackson ex d., -u. Deyo, 1282 V. Whitbeck, i6g8 Whitbread, Ex parte ^ 2002 Whitcomb v. Cardell, 1592, 1690 V. Reid, 2288 V. Taylor, 317, 417, 418 V. Towers, 984 White's Appeal, 122 White V. Albertson, 1707 V. Amdt, 115, 145, 146 7'. Barker, 299, 1606 V. Bass, 2208 V. Bayley, 1287 V. Baylor, 1796 V. Bond, 2073, 2074, 2170 V. Briggs, 347, 1630, 1632, 1693 V, Brooks, 1923 V. Brown, 2089, 2114 V. Cannon, 1586, 1645 V. Carpenter, 1634, 1635, 1649 V. Chapin, 2226, 2244 V. Chitty, 501 V. Clark, 2328 V. Clarke, 736, 737, 1460, 1463 V. Cox, 1033 V. Crawford, 2208, 2217, 2218, 2245 V. Cutler, 541, 542, 543, 545, 546, 552, 557, 724, 738, 807, 833 V. Denman, 2126, 2364 V. Dougherty, 2008 V. Downs, 2007 V. Dresser, 2233 V. Drew, 761, 763, 1622 V. Elwell, 1280 V. Fisher, 2150 V. Fitzgeralff, 1592, 1964 v. Flora, 1758 V. Foster, 53, 55, 56 V. Givens, 1481 V. Graves, 902 V. GrifEng, 1114, 1164, 2266 V. Hampton, 810, 1599, 1786, 1788, 2096, 2097, 2171 V. Hart, 1512 V. Hicks, 1837 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. ccxxvu White V. Holland, 1013, 1323 V. Howard, 368,2058, 2289 V. Hunt, 1H4 7'. Hussey, 1626 V. Hutchinson, 1280 ■V. Hyatt, 2024 V. Knapp, 811 V. Leslie, 2364 7'. Livingston, loor V. McGannon, 1697 V. Middlesex R. Co., 1051 ■V. Miller, 1247 z>. Molyneux, 10S3, 1126, 1175, 1177 V. Montgomery, 1083, 1192 1'. Moore, 2121 V. Mosely, 1247 V. Nashville, 713, 738, 2325 V. Osbom, 1246 V. Parker, 695 V. Perkins, 630 7'. Polleys, 1494, 2164 V. Reid, 210 V. Rittenmeyer, 688, 1997, 1999, 2062, 2084, 2103, 2112 V. Samson, 1626 7'. Sayre, 1876, 1911 V. State, 596 V. Story, 853, 859 V. Sutherland, 2106 V. Trotter, 1773 V. Trustees Methodist Episcopal Church, 35.40 V. Wager, 1938 •V. Wagner, 552, 553, 563, 568, 570, 646, 647,895, 1152, 1153 V. Warner, 1157 ti. Watts, 1758, 2146 V. Williams, 1888, 2007, 2146 V. Williamson, 532 V. Willis, 807 V. White, 216, 220. 236, 274, 500, 509, 519, 846, 862, 881, 882, 884, 888, 893, 896, go8, 909, 912,916,918,919, 941, 944, 1456, 1781, 2327, 2331 7'. Whitney, 688, 1095, 2062, 2 112 White, Doe d., v. Simpson, 1595, 1596 White. Jackson ex d., v. Cary, 1557 White's Admr. v. White, 1520, 1521 White's Contract, Re^ 1693 White River Turnpike Co. v. Vermont Cent. R. Co., 2327 Whiteacre v. Rector, 1403, 1503 Whitecomb v. Jacob, 1761 Whitefield v. McLeod, 1758 Whitehead v. Clifford, 1162 V, Cummings, 886 •V. Foley, 2366 V. Hellen, 2'i63 V. Mallory, 792, 821, 822, 915 V. Tapp, 1398 Whitehead, Doe d., v. Pittman, 1141 Whiteman v. Field, 1466 Whiteside v. Jackson, 1268, 1272 V. Miller, i6go Whiteside et al. v. Jackson exd. Mumford, 1282 Whitesides v. Cannon, 1373, 1562 Whitewater Valley Canal Co. v. Vallette, 2342 Whitfield v. Bewit, 495 V. Prickett, 260, 272 V. Taylor, 964 Wliitham v. Osbum, 2328 ^^'h.ithers v. Yeadon, 1021 Whiti ig w. Brastow, 131, 147, ii37t 1187 V. Dewey, 2025 V. Edmunds, 1144, 1145 V. Gould, 1635, 1646 V. Griffing, 2266 V. Nicholl, 523 V. Ohlert, 997 V. Pittsburg Opera House, 996, 998, 1305 7/. Salter, 512 V. Stevens, 2343 Whiting V. Street, 2258 V. Whiting, 457, 780, 914, 1885 Whitley v. Davis, 2353 Whitlock's Case, 1039, 2361 Whitlock V. Duffield, loog, 1087, 1088, 1089 7'. Gosson, 1471, 1474 V. Hale, 1975 V. Horton, 1162 Whitmarsh v. Cutting, 1205, 1207, 12 10, 1267 V. Walker, 54, 56 Whitmire v. Wright, 823 Whitmore v. Gibbs, 1266 V. Learned, 1635, 1648 %i. Russell, 534 V. Shiverick, 1999 V. Weld, 437 •V. Whitmore, 661 Whitney v. Allaire, 971, 978, 979, mi V. Allen, 2156 V. Batchelder, 2045 V. Buckman,2ois, 2016, 2024, 2031 V. Closson, 646, 648 V. Cochran, 1291 V. Dutch, 986, 1031, 2343 V. French, 211, 1995,2038. 2039 V. Gordon, 1275, 1307, 1328, 1342, 1343 V. McKinney, 2147, 2150 V. Meyers, 1162 7*. Morrow, 574 7/. Salter, 490, 505 V. Stevens, 750 V. Swett, 1262, 1264, 1265, 1284, 1295, 1303. 1305. 1329 V. Union R. Co., 268 Whitridge v. Barry, 1878 Whitsellw. Mills, 662, 770, 771, 919, 920 Whitt V. Mayor of New York, 1321 Whittaker z'. Hawley, 982, 983, 1126, 1176,1177, 1178, 1180 Whittemore 7'. Farrington, 2071, 2330 V. Gibbs, 1998 V. Moore, 1316 Whitten v. Whitten, 647, 1975, 19S2 Whitter v. Cochego, 2247 Whitthaus v. Shack, 933 Whittick, Jackson ex d., -u. Deigo, 1309 Whittier v. Whittier, 779 Whittingham's Case, 1031 Whittington v. Wright, 2298 Whittle V. Samuels, 1483 Whittlesey v. Fritter, 1920, 1934 V. McMahon, 1625 Whitton V. Whitton, 191 1 Whitwell 7/. Harris, 1050, 1141 V. Warner, 1621 Whitworth v. Gangain, 2003 V. Stuckey, 416, 417 Whyte z'. Nashville, 506, 710, 723, 731, 737,740 Wickersham v. Bills, 284 V. Irwin, rio8 Wickes V. Clarke, 633, 642 V. Jordan, 539, 1206 Wickham v. Berry, 299, 1037, 1606, 1675 V. Hawker, 90, 93 Wickliffe v. Lexington, 1781 Wickman v. Robinson, 2009 Wickoff V. Davis, 2068 Wicks z*. Mitchell, 896, 2012 V. Scribens, 2173 Widdowson v. Duck, 1721 Widger v. Browning, 1344 WiedlerT*. Farmers' Bank, 8go Wien z/. Simpson, nog Wier V. Humphries, 693 V. Michigan Stove Co., 305 V. Simmons, 1867 V. Tate, 600 Wiesner v, Zann, 2301 Wigg's Case, 1026 Wiggin V. Berry, 1850 7'. Buzzell, 1445 V. Chance, 1502, 1519 CCXXVIU TAJBLE OF CASES. References are to pages. "Wiggin V. He5''wood, 2082, 2083 Wiggins I/. Holley, 210, 211,2297 V. Keizer, 961 V. McCleary, 2303 V. New York, 2268 V. Peters, 1005 V. Wiggins, 64, 65, 507, 1278, 1876, i8gi, 2270, 2271 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 370, 390, 107 r Wiggleswoith z/ Dallison, 1205, 120S, 1209,1210 V. Steers, 1032, 1033 Wight XK Gray, 133 V. Sliaw, 591 V. Thayer, 252, 396, 411, 412, 427, 448, 449, 450 Wightman v. Gray, 2165 V. Pettis, 678 2'. Wightman, 660, 661, 751, 753, 754j 755, 756, 757 W^igley V, Beauchamp, 837, 938, 949 Wikoff 2/. Davis, 2154, 2179, 2180 Wilber v. Wilber, 793, 910 Wilbraham v. Snow, 1969 Wilburs'. Almy, 1731 V, Tobey, 66a, 673 Wilce V. Wilce, 310 Wilcox f. Bates, 2046 v, Danforth, 2235 V. Hawley, 1514, 1515 V. Heywood, 405, 416, 447, 472 V. Morris, 1993, 2001 ZK Randall, 797, 940 V. Smith, 1769 V. Wheeler, 289, 1797 V. Wilbur, 12S0 V. Wilcox, 1957, 1963, 1964 I'. Wood, 1006 Wilcoxen v. Bowles, 2254 Wilcoxon V. Donnelly, 2251 Wild's Case, 324, 325 "Wild?/. Deig, 2327, 2328 V. Milne, igSo Wild's Lessee v. Sei-pell, 1144, 1160, 1220 Wilder'. Cantillon, 1346, 1347, 1356 V. W'aters, 145 Wilden v. Bodley, 1709 z'. Brooks, 648 V. Ewbank, 1156 z'. Haughey, 1421, 1475, 2144 7'. Houghton, 2066 z\ House, 1357 V. St." Paul, 2245 %•. Whictemore, 2032, 2033 V. Whirttemore, 1666 Wildermuth v. Koenig, 1499 Wildes V. Van Voorhis, 902, 1910 Wildey v. Barney's Lessee, 1976 z<. Bonney, 1928 V. Collier, 2059 Wilding V. Richard, 1793 Wddman v. Taylor, 105S V. Wildman, 43 Wilds V. Layton, 549, 572, 576 "Will's Case, 2199 Wiles V. Peck, 2364 Wiley's Appeal, 975 Wiley V. Collins, 1794 V. Ewing, 2073, 2135, 2171, 2174 z>. Knight, 1624, 2o6r v. Penson, 2148, 2150 V. Smith, 415, 1694 V. Wiley, goo V/ilford z>. Grant, 706 Wilgus V. Commonwealth, 974 V. Lewis, 1316, 1335, 1340 "'. Whiteheart, 2255 Wilhelm?'. Lee, 1998 v. Mertz, 1025, 1047 Wilhelmiz/. Leonard, 810,2096 Wilhite's Admr. v. Boulware, 1957 Wilkerson zk Adams, 22S1 Wilkerson v. Rust, 121 r Wilkins v. Aarton, 1884, 1907 V. Fry, 1065 V. French, 688, 802, 1921, 1998, 2063, 2084, 2103, 2i6g, 2173 z'. Irvine, 1268 V, Taliafero, 2255 V. Taylor, 76 V. French, 2062 V. Varshbinder, 46, 52 Wilkinson v. Adams, 2281 V. Barry, 1778, 1787 V. Bewick, 120 V. Clauson, mo V. Deming, 1464 V. Dent, gi8, 944 V. Flowers, 2094, 2140 Z'. Hall, 1327, 1328, i32g, 1338, 1901 V. Jett, 1244 V. Ketler, 2271 V. Leland, 671, 2324, 2328, 2329, 2333 V. Malin, 1731 V. Merrill, 1403, 1404, 1454 V. Nelson, 1840 V. Parrish, 785, 886, 887 V. Pearson, 1034 V. Proud, 93 V. Rogers, 1141 V. Ccatt. 1538, 1700 7'. Wilkinson, 265 Willan V. Willan, 10S9 Willard v. Benton, 1154, 1155 7/. Eastham, 2012 V. Finnegan, 2159, 2170, 2171 V. Harvey,2i3i, 2251 V. Henry, i860, 1869 V. Rcas, 2005 7'. Tillman, 1179,2251, 2258 V. Ware, 1837 V. Worsham, 2072 7'. Winnelly, 1996, 2051 Willet V. Beatty, 804, 813, 814, 817 V. Brown, 694, 786, 824, 825 Willets 7'. Burgess, 2050, 2 16S Willey V. Haley, 464 Willi z>. Dryden, 1108, 2262 William's Case, 519 William z\ Farwell, 1812 V. Roberts, 2005 William and Mary College zk Powell, 934 Williams' Appeal, 329, 336, 1561, 1604, 1655, 1664, 1707, 1753 Williams Case, 2146 Williams, Ex parte, 1831 Williams' Exrs., 526 Williams v. Ackerman, 1134, 1125, 2260 V. Ackerson, 1322 V. Allen, 294 V. Allison, 1758 V. Angell, 1864 V. Arkle, 1638 7'. Bagnall. go V, Baker, 638. 639, 924 V. Bartlett. 20S7 V. Beasley, 440, 441 V. Bennett, 873, 1334 V. Brown, 1653 V. Bosanquet, 979, 2262 V. Bi-iggs, 2017, 2018. 2020 V. Burrell, 1063, 1065, 1074, 1080, iigo, 2362 V. Carle, 658, 794 V. Cash, 1212, 1297, 1308 V. Castor, 489, 521 V. Chitty, 953, 955, 957 V. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2089 zi. Claiborne, 645 V. Cleaver, 970 V. Coade, 1638 V. Conrad, 489. 514 7'. Countney, 8q3 V. Cowden, 270, 1858 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXiX Williams v. Cox, 8i6 V, Dakin, 1868 V. Dawson, 914 V. Deriar, 1255, 1275, 1281, 1301, 1307, 1319. 1324. 1339 V. Dickerson, 321, 322 V. Dorris, 1442, 1444 7). Downing, 1047, 1225 V, Dwinnelle, 1703 z*. Earle, 1076, 2264 V. Engelbrecht, 2060 V. Everett, 1600 V. First Presbyterian Soc, 1596, 1684, 1723, 1796 •u. Garrison, 1159, 1222, 1579 I', r.ibbes, 1665 7'. Gray, 18S3 z'. Groucott, 89 V. Hall, 1419 11. Hensley, 1309 •V. Hichborn, 417 •V. Hilton, 2027, 2o8g, 2090 V. Hodge, 1282, 1292 V. Hoilingsworth, 163 1, 1639, 1641, 1642, 1644, 1700 V. Holmes, 1249, 1820 ^. Howard, 984 V. Inabnet, 1033 V. James, 2220 V. "jekyll, 1553 V. Jenkins, igo6 V. Johnson, 671 ^. Jones, 351, 1497 V. Kershaw, 1638 V. Lake, 999 V. Lanier, 578 V. Latourette, 648 V. Leech, 1674 •v. McCall, 1724 V. McConico, 300, 1606 V. Milton, 2o8g V. Morancy, 2105 V. Moore, 2344 V. Morgan, 1367 V. Nelson, 72, 2247 V, Nixon, 1733 V. Nolan, 1233 V. Oliphant, 1246 V. Otey, 1782, 1785 V. Owens, 2044, 2055 V. Parisiene, 769 ' V. Perry, 2153 V. Potter, 1139 z;. Roberts, 200S V. Robinson, 2066 V. Robson, 900,903, gog V. Roger Williams Ins. Co., 632 V. Rogers, 11 53 V. Sheldon, 1029, 1033 V. Sharman, 1132 V. Starr, 1450, 1473, i475i 1478*2133 V. Steele, 2023 V. Stratton, 2003 V. Sweetland, 1407, i444) 1485 ■V. Tatnall, 2126 V, Teachy, 2100, 2101 V. Temer, 1622 7). Terrall, 2151 V. Thomas, 209 V. Thorn, 273 V. Tipton, 2177 V. Townsend, 2086, 2146, 2155 V. Vosanquet, n 1 7 •u. Waters, 299, 1558 V. Wethered, 1425 z/. Whiting, 1456 V. Williams, 347.407. 596, 755, 1627, 1628, 1632, 1633, 1647 V. Winsor, 2018 V. Wood, 2006 V. Woods, 814, S32 V. Woodward, 233, 1114, iii9> ^832 Williams v. Worthington, 1591, 1593 V. Young, 1497, 1501, 1502, 20Qg Williams, Doe d., v. Cooper, 1309 Williams, Doe d., v. Matthews, 1039 Williams, Jackson ex. d., ?/. Miller, 1108, 1113, 1 148, 1348, 1586, 1638, 164S, i6g6 Williams, Doe d., v. Pasquale, 1309 Williams, Doe d., v. Smith, 1336 Williams' College v, Mallett, igii Williamson -u. Adams, 2281 V. Ball, i75t •V. Keekham, 1373 V. Berry, 1516, 1751, 2154 V. Champlin, 20S2 •v. Daniel, 408, 414, 416 V. Farrell, 1838 V, Field, 2147, 2151 V. Field's Exrs., 315, 317 V. Fontain, 1965 V. Crank Trunk R. Co., iig5 V. Mason, 813 V. New Albany R. Co., 2067 V- New Jersey S. R. Co., 61, 77, 98 V. Parisen, 883 7.1. Paxton, 1292, 1318, 13 19, 1326 V. Perry, 2159 V. Richardson, 2250 z/. Steele, 2024 V. Suydam, 1661, 1754 7J. Wickersham, 336, 1709 V. Wilkins, 4gi, 1741 V. Williamson, 936 Williamson, Den ex d., 11. Snowhill, 1319 Williamson's Admx. v. Richardson, 974 Williard v. Williard, 544, 1G90 Williman -v. Holmes, 1561, 1655, 1672, 1673^ Willinik v. Morris Canal Co., 2018 Willing V. Brown, igSi Willington v. Gale. 2062 Willink V. Morris Canal, 201:9 WillLngs V. Consequa, 2057 Willion V. Berkly, 374, 375, 398, 399, 437, 452 Willis V. Astor, 10S8, io8g 71. Bucher, 340, 415, 417 V. Doe, 838 V. Farley, 2ogg, 2104 V. Freeman, 786, 825 V. Gay, 1778 V. Hiscox, 1858 V. Matthews, 1425, 1426 V. Sherrall, 1843 V. Twombly, 2109 V. Valette, 2104 V. Willis, 1648, 1700 V. Wozencraft, 1276, 1290 Willis, Doe d., v, Martin, issg Willis, Lessee v. Bucher, 424 Willison V. Watkins, 1144, 1x46, 1T48, 1150, 1160, 1214, 1222, i2g4, 1309,1913, 1914 Willmarth v. Pratt, 2272 Willmerding v, Mitchell, igg6 Wills V. Cowper, 367, 720, 1164, 1835, 2057, 2288 V. Gas Co., 1151 V. Sayers, 137 1 V. Slade, 515 Wills, Jackson ex d., v. Stiles, 1148, 1213, 1218 Willson V. Cleveland, 1159 7). Glossop, 774 V. Phillips, 1138 Wilmarth v. Bancroft, 2186 V. Bridges, 533, 761, 815 V. Cutting, 538 Wilmerding v. Mitchell, 1996 Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Allen, 1139, 1158 Wilms V. Jess, gi, g2, 93, 94, 1743. 2033, 2237 Wilson, Ex parte i 28 Wilson z/. Abbott, 1331 V, Arentz. 580, 624, 632 V. Bennett, 181B, 2160 V. Boyce, 2024 V. Branch, 853, 858, 884 ccxxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Wilson V. Brett, iigi V, Burton, 2072 w. Chalfant, 2212, 2213 V. Chesshire, 2g8, 1558, 1582 V. Christopherson, 1479, 1480 V. City of Bedford, 2230 V. Cochran, 1384, i397. i400j r4or, 1420, 1427, 1433, 1445, 1507 V. Cox, gi6, 935, 955 ■V. Crook, 2333 V. Davisson, 804, 829, 830, 832. 858, 2009 V. Delaplaine, 1120, 2250, 2257 V. Dent, i6gr V. Douglas, 978 V. Drumrite, 2001, 2037, 216S V. Duguid, i6z8 V. Edmonds, 506, 563 V. Finch, 1200 V. Fleming, 1883, 1920, 1936 V. Forbes, 69 11. Gaines, 1814 V. Greenwood, 260, 272 V. Gait, 1855, 1867 V. Graham, 2008 V. Hart, 267, 1778 V. Harvey, 2060 V. Halton, 1055, 1056 V, Hayward, 2104, 2147 V. Henry, 2297 V. Herbert, 2012 V, Hill, 596, 2116 V, Hodges, 1258 s». Hooper, 2078 V. Hubbell, 1213, 1219 V. Hunter, 2021 v^. Jones, 1157, 1158 V. Lester, 11 60 V. Lyon, 2004, 2006 V. Madison, 1502 V. Maltby, 2187 V. Mayor, 1627 V. Mayor of New York, 5 V. McCullough, 1764 V. McEvan, 2298, 2301 V. McLenaghan, 733, 931 V. McNeal, 46 V, Merrill, 12S0 V. Moore, 1783 V. Oatman, 822, 841, 842 V. O'Connell, 533 V. Oldham, 1034 V. Page, 2158 V. Pearson, 2303 V, Peelle, 1882 V. Prescott, 1274 V. Reed, 1246 V. Rodeman, 1333 V. Russell, i6g8, 1700 V. Scruggs, 1 189 V. Shoenberger's Exrs., 203g, 2120 V. Smith, S06, 1128, Ji2g, 1144, 1148, 1168, 1335 V. Spring, 2147 V. Stillwell, 2025, 2026 V. Taylor, 1327, i32g, 1343 V. Taylor's Exrs., 730 V. Towie, isgg V. Troup, 688, 7gg, 800, 1708, 1775, 1806, 1S26, 1830, 1843, 1S44, 2ogg, 2100, 2101, 2104, 2105, 2111, 2160 •V. Unselt, 2151, 2157, 2158 V. Wall, 1763, 1763 V. Wallani, 2266 V. Weatherby, 1160 z*. Wilson, 311, 48g, 1848, 1862, 1872, ig35, 2015 Wilson, Doe d., v. Phillips, 11 50 Wilson, Den ex d., v. Small, 411, 415, 426, 428 Wilt V. Franklin, 1538, 1786, 1789 Wilton V. Tazwell, i8g6 Wiltshear v. Cottrell, 107 Wiltshire &. Sidford, 2235, 2236 Wimberly v. Bailey, 487 Wimfish V. Tarlbois, 433 Winans v. Peebles, 646, 647 z'. Wilkie, 2068, 2og6 Winbish v. Willoughby, 249 Winchell v. Edwards, 2302 Winchelsea v. Wentworth, 1570 Winchester v. Tilghmau, 331 Wind V. Jekyl, 20 Winder v. Little, 841 Windham v. Portland, 718, 739, 797, 819, 834 Windle v. Brandt, 1466 Windsor v. Sirapkins, 1982 Windt z'. German Reformed Church, 41' Winebrinner v. Weisiger, 646, 895, ig38 Wing V. Burgis, 2357 V. Cooper, ig92, 2048, 2050, 2053,2160 V. Cropper, 1407, 1408, 1443, 1489 V. Gray, 118 V. Hayden, 1450, 1479, 1502 z>. McDowell, 2139 Winkfield v. Brinkman, 1622 Winkler v. Winkler, 5S7, 588, 593, 626, 633, 667, 675. 1372 Winland v. Holcomb, 1436 Wiun u. Dillon, 1643, 1707, 1769 V. Elliott, 781, 820 V. Ingilby, 120, 126, 127 V. Murehead, 2256 V. State, 1049 Winne, Inre, 1377 Winne, Matter of. 274, 585, 587, 588, 590, 592, 617, 620,624, 632,633, 635, 637, 641, 651, 670, 678, 1366 Winne v. Littleton, 2084, 2148 Winningham v. Crouch, 974 Winona & St. Peter R. Co. v. St. Paul & Sioux City R. Co., 1622 Winship v. Bass, 1684 V. Pitts, 544, 565 Winslow V. Chiffelle, rg6i V. Clark, 2147, 2151 V. Merchants' Ins. Co., g6, g7, 103, 105, 106, log, 112, 117, 121, 123, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 142, 146, 1187 V. Minnesota & P. R. Co., 1746, 1747 V. Rand, 2250 V. Winslow, 2297, 2299 Winstead v. Bingham, 2108 Winstell v. Hehl, 1025 Winsthoff V. Dracourt, 534 Winston v. Jones, 1754 V. Franklin Academy, 1043, 1141, 1213 Winter v. Anson, 832, 2008' V. Brockwell, 2246 V. Henderson, 2154, 2i7g, 2180 V. Stevens, i2g6, 1352, 1354, 1356 Winterbottom 7/. Ingham, 1276 Wintermute v. Light, 45, 46, 47 Winters v. Cherry, 995 V. McGhee, igor Winthrop 71. Benson, 210 V. Fairbanks, 2361 V. Farrar, 5 Winton v. Barnum, 647 V. Cornish, 983, 1015, 1176 Wintour v. Clifton, gi8, 944 Wire V. Mitchell, 108 Wirth V. Bransom, 230S, 2310 Wiscot's Case, 433, 446, 1024 Wise V. Faukner, 2257 V. Metcalf, 108, 109, no, 563, 1068 V. Old, 2274 V. Wise, 1786, 1787 Wiseley v. Findlay, gig, 1973, 1975, i97g W:seman v. Beekman, 893 &. Hutchinson, 1777 V. Lucksinger, 2212, 2213 V. Macy, 890 V. Wiseman, 773, 887, 891 Wiser V. Lockwood, 756 Wislerz/. Hershey, 2217 References are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXl Wislon e-. Patrick, 2054 Wisner v. Faruham, 1523 zi. Ocumpaugh, 2272 Wistar v. Mercer, 2263 Wistou V. Mowlin, 2106 Wiswall V. Stewart, 1768 V. WUkins, 1882, 1883, igo6 \\'it V. Mayor, 1042 Witczinski z>. Everman, 2030 ^Vitham v. Brooner, 1607 V. Perkins, 589, 591, 624, 628, 659 Withaus V. Schock, 737, 838, 894, 934 Withers' Appeal, 95 Withers w. Allgood, 1693 V. Jenkins, 5S7, 679, 690 z*. Larrabee, 997, 1251, 1269, la'o, 1274, 1273. 12S6, 1293, 1294, 1304, 1328 V. Withers, 1646 V. Yeadou, 1614, 1737 Witherspoon v. Duncan, 2307 ,,,■ , . ''■ I^4"1°P' 533, i973» 1977, i979 withington s Appeal, 1806 '\\'itlinell 1). Petzold, 1305, 1327, 1330, 1331 Witman v. Watry, ii6i, 1162 Witiner's Appeal, 13S, 2022 Witt V. Mayor, 1020, 1130, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1300, 1315, I3i7» 1329. 1334, 1338, 1339. »342 \\ itte V. Dawkins, 1035 V. Witte, 1338 ^^"itte^ V. Briscoe, 901, 911, 912 V. Dudley, 1777 V. Witter, logo, 1091 Witthaus T'. Shack, 715, 957 Witty V. Matthews, 1054, 1083, iioo, 11S2, 1191, 1 196, 1201 Wixon's Estate, Matter of , 1382 WixoQ V. Bear River ^ Auburn Water & Min- ing Co., 2239 Woford V. Gaines, 1513, 1517 z'. McKenna, 2357 Woglam V. Cowperthwaite, 2273 Wolcott V. Schenck, 1058, 1139, 1140, 1154 V. Winchester, 2105, 2107, 210S Wolf f. Banning, 2151 V. Bassett, 823 V. Doser, 998, 1013, 1323 V. Driggs, 2033 V. Fogarty, 2364 z'. Frost, 2244 V. Mitchell, 993 V. Smith, 2134 Wolfe V. Doe ex d. Dowell, 1349 V. Fleischacker, 1426 V. Frost, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2215 Wolffe V. Wolff, 1131, 1132, 1315, 1316, 1317 Wolford V. Baxter, 123, 132 Wollaston v. Hakewill, 1072, 1112 V. Tribe, 1790, 1795, 1801 Wolstenholme, Re, 499 Wolveridge v. Steward, 1063, 1073, logS Wolverton v. Collins, 2035 Wolz z>. Sanford, 1131, 1316, 1317 Wo mack z'. McQuarry, 1015, 1176, 1178, 1180 V. Whitmore, 19S2 V. Womack, 2278 Wood's Appeal, 2119, 2122 Wood V. Ash, 982 V. Bayard, 461, 465 V. Beach, 2318 V. Brown, 1734 •V. Bumham, i6og, 1694 V. Chambers, 1223, 1480, 1481 V. Chapin, 2318, 2364, 2365 V. Cheshire, 1972 V. Cox, 1590, 1630, 163S V. Day, 1 148 z'. Dummer, 1671 •V. Fleet, 1976, 1988 •u. Foster, 982 V. Fowler, 6g, 74 V. Gaynor, 740 Wood V. Goddridge, 1805 V. Goodrich, 1043, 1044, 1832 V, Goodwin, 2170 V. Griffin, 553. 16S2 V. Hibbard, 2136 ■V. Hill, 306, 333 V. Hubbell, 971, 97S, 993, 997, 1016, 1175, 1180, 1 181 V. Humphrey, 1051, 1052 V. Hyatt, 1355 V. Independent School District of Mitchell, 1193 V. Jackson, 959 V. Keyes, 857 V. Krebbes, 1778 V. Leadbitter, 2213 V. Lee, 856, 861,916, 935 V. Little, 1988 V. Lord, 1407, 1461, 1462 V. Mather, 300, 1606 V. Mitcham, 2286 V. Morgan, 841 7' Morton, 1308 V. Oakley, 2149 V, Partridge, 1119, 1171,2265 7/. Patterson, 1038 7'. Phillips. 1356, 1914 V. Rabe, 1643 V. Robertson, 1821, 1S22 V. Saunders, 224S V. Seeley, 924 V. Seward, 1593, 1632 7'. Smith, 2150 V. Sou:hampton, 1S63 7'. Sullens, 2004 •V. Summons, 771 V. I'ate, 1320, 1331 V. Terry, 2158 V. Trask, 688; 1006, 1996, 2000, 2063 V Turner, 1217, 1285 V. Warren, 648 V. Weimer, 2023 V. Wheeler, 1403, 1404 V. Whelen, 132, 133, 2085 zi. White, 1754 V. Wilcox, 1255 V. AVilliams, 2147 V. Wood, 299, 918, 944, 945, 955, 1607, 1680 Wood, Jackson ex d., v. Salmon, 1135, 1307 Wood, Jackson ex d., v. Swart, 1063 Wood's Lessee v. Pindall, 1280 Woodberry v. Materson, 708 Woodburn's Admr. v. Stout, 1180 Woodbury zk Bowman, 1600, 1601 V. Lnddy, 1455 V. Manlove, 2125 V, Parshley, 2212 V. Swan, 2068, 2069 Woodcock V. Bennett, 1697, 2324 V. Estey, 2361 7/. Roberts, 1052 Woodcock, Doe d., v. Barthrop, 1597, 1605 Wooden zf. Shotwell, 2349 Wooden, Doe d., v. Shotwell. 5 Woodford z'. Higby, 1933, 1940 Woodhill V. Great Western R. Co., 1194, 1195 Woodhouslee v. Dalrymple, 2282 WoodhuU y. Rosenthal, 1 107, 1109, 1115, 1121, IT22 Woodlawn Cemetery v. Everett, 41 Woodliff V. Drury, 1566 Woodman v. Blake, 1870, 1871 V. Coolbroth, 492, 2353 V. Good, 1707 V. Pitman, 69, 70 V. Smith, 2355 Woodmeston v. Walker, 252, 257, 270 Woodrow V. Michael, 1262, 1274, 1281, 1329, 1335. 1340, 1341 Woodruff V. Adams, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233 V. Erie R. Co., 1020 ccxxxu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Woodruff V, Johnson, 1747, 1748 V. King, 2107 V. North Bloomfield Gravel Minuig Co., 199 V. Trenton Water Power Co., 2214 V. Woodruff, 1659 Woods V. Bailey, 2004 V. Buie, 1511 •u. Davis, 1403, 1405 V. Doherty, J049 V. Hildebrand, 2063, 2092 V. Hilderbrand, iggg V. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 1054, 1055 V, Spaulding, 2154 V. Wallace, 511,522, 802, S03, 2001, 2037, 2043, 2053 Woodson V. Good, 574 V. Skinner, 11 57 V. Smith, 489, 514 Woodward v. Blanchard, 2295 V. Brown, 1146, 1297, 1309 V. Cone, T154, 1155 V. Cowdery, ii\-\ V. Dowse, 774, 887, 892 V. Lasar, 105, 108, no 7J. Leiby, 1211 V. McReynolds. 211, zi2 •v. Murray, 1398, 1457 V. Pickett, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2044, 2067 •u. Seeley, 2212, 2213 v. Spurr, 646 V. Wilson, 638 V. Wood. 2147 V. Woodward, 2006 Woodworth v. Campbell, 1026 V. Comstock, 1400 V. Guzman, 2001, 2037, 2126 V. Paige, 792, 793, 915, 926, 928 V. Payne, 32 Woolen z*. Hillen, 1701 Wooler 7/. Attorney-General of Victoria, 85 Woolfolkz/. Rickets, 1462 Wooliscroft V. Norton, 1076 Woolley V. Holt, 1993, 2065 V. Magoie, 821 Woolman -v. Garringer, 2238 Woolmore v. Burrows. 1693 Woolcombe v. Ouldridge, 30 Woolridge v. Lucas, 625, 767 V. Planters' Bank, 1785 V. Wilkins, 761, 766, 786, 823,824,'84i, 842 Woolsey v. Seeley, 61 Woolston V. Woolston, 1839 Wooster v. Hunt & Layman Ins. Co., 717 Wooten V. Eillinger, 2065 Worcester v. Clark, 890, 927 V. Eaton, 985, 986,987 V. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 1247, 1248 Worcester National Bank v. Cheeney, 810, 2106, 2108, 2136 Worchester v. Lord, 2296 Word V. Trask, 2078 Work V, Byayton, 976 7'. Harper, 2364 Workan v. Miffin, 1127, 1129, 1167 Workman v. Greening, 216S V. Guthrie, 2295 V. Mifflin, 2269 Workel v. Munn, 2354 Wormley v. Wormley, 645, 1752, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1769, 1770 Worrall's Appeal, 1721 vVorrell v. Munn, 1042 Worril V. Barnes, 2272 Worsham v. Callison, 782 Worsley z'. Granville, 347, 1632 V. Worsley, 955, 956 Worth V. Hill, 2155, 2181 V. McAden, 1732, 1734 Wortben v. Pearson, 941, 942, 943, 955 Worthing v. Webster, 2335 Worthington v. Cook, 2259, 2261, 2263, 2264 z'. Gimaon, 2211. 2216 z/. Lee, 1008, 1009 V. Middleton, 909 V. Parker, 198 V. Roberts, 88g V. Staunton, 1906 V. Young, 1025 Worthy v. Johnson, 1723, 1766, 1775, 1776, 17S4, 1785 Wortly V. Bukgad, 2139 Wortman v. Guthrie, 1923 Wotton V. Healy, 1025 V. Shirt, 2268 Wragg V. Comptroller-General, 2005 Wray v. Feddecke, 2125 V. Steele, 1651 Wren v. Bradley, 269 V. Kirton, 1719, 1720 Wriggins v. Holley, 2295 Wright's Appeal, 95 Wright z*. Atkyns, 347. 1627, 1629, 1631,2081 V. Barlow, 183 1 V. Barrett, 54 V. Bates, 2046, 2055 V. Bircher, 2018 V. Briggs, 2068, 2166 V. Brown, 1375, 1376, 1675, 1799 z/. Bundy, 2026,2060, 2148 •V. Burroughes, 1862 V. Cartwright, 970, 1570 V. Dane, 2005 V. Delafield, 1796 V. Denn, 331 V. Ditzler, 1420, 1435 V. Douglass, 21, 1592, 1691 V. Dowley, 285 V. Dunning, 1413, 1416, 1454, 1457, 1458, T460, 1464, 1465, 1495 V. Eaves, 2095, 2150 V. Evans, 2105 V Gelvin, 725 V. Gordon, 234 V. Hays, 1484, 1485, i486, 1487 V. Henderson, 2000, 2063, 207S V. Herron, 401,690, 6gi V. Hicks, 327 V. Holbrook, 1194 %i. Jennings, 705 V. Kelley, 1108 •V. King, 1653 V. Langley, 2089 V. Lattan, 1127, 116S V. Miller, 1675 z/. Morgan, 2060, 2061 V. Morley, 2172 V. O'Brien, 116 •V. Page, 23 z/. Pierson, 300, 424, i6og, 1693 V. Pratt, 1399 z/. Roberts, 1278 V. Rose, 2063 V. Saddler, 1920, 1940 V. Sadler, 221, 1931, 1951 V. Scott, 417, 420, 427 z/. Searles, 1906 V. Shumway, 2080 •V. Sperry, 2091 z/. Stanard, 1757, 1758 z'. Tallmadge, iSog, 1828, 1829, 1830 V. Thayer, 402 V. Trustees of M. E. Church, 2257. 2259 V. Tuttle, 1850 V. Wakeford, 183 1 z/. West, 918 z/. Wilkins, 1850 V. Williams, 2238, 2252, 2259 V. Wright, 595. 68i, 682, 910, 941, 944, 959» 1363, 1364, 1366, 1369, 1591, 1904, 2002 Wright, Den d., v. Page, 304, 305, 309, 311, 331, 339. 344 Re£erences are to pages. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXIU Wrij^lu, Doe d., v. Gordon, 234 Wright, Doe d. Plumpton, Re^ 651, 1366 Wright ex d. Shaw v. Russell, 320, 321, 331 WurL's Kxrs. v. Page, 76 Wusiier V. Fanihnm, 1444 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fain, 1327, 1329 Wyant v. Deiffeiidafer, 574 Wyatt, Doe d., v. Byron, 1108 V. Harrison, 2230, 2231, 2232, 2233 V. Sadler's Heirs, 331, 334 z>. Simpson, 1368 V. Stewart, 2042, 2125 D. Watkins, 2020 Wyble V. McPheters, 1594 Wych V. East India Co., 1785 Wycherle7 -u. Wycherley, 1697 WyckofE y. Noyes, 213S IK Gardner, 1024 Wyeth V. Stone, 2283 Wykham v. Wykham, 288, 2gg, 1594, 1606, 1712 Wylde V. Wylde, 1939 Wylie V. McMakin, 2148 Wylly V. Collins, 1562 Wyman v. Babcock, 2046, 2048, 2049 V. Brigden, 278 V. Brown, 237, 1569, 2319 V. Dorr, 982 V. Farrar, 1014, 1015, 1183 V. Fox, 792 V. Wyman, 719 Wymans v, Richardson, 717, 875 Wyncook v. Burger, 2206 z>. Cowing, 2168 Wyndham v. Way, 119 Wyne v. Styan, 2074 Wynehamer v. People, 1517, 2324 Wyukoop V. Burger, 2208 V. Cowing, 2045, 2050, 2055 Wynn v. Story, 414, 415, 416 Wynne v. Fletcher, 265 V. Hawkins, 347, 1627, 1632 V. Newborough, 1036 7'. Styan, 2172 V. Wynne, 327, 1517 Wyse r'. Damdridge, 1763 Wythe 7'. Thurlston. 1828 Wyther v. Casson, 2358 Yale V. Dederer, 896, 1374, 1562 Yancy v. Smith, 935 Yandell v. Pugh. 8S9, 927 Yandes v. Wright, 91, 92, 2233, 2237 Yarborough z*. Newell, 2037, 2175 V. Wood, 2005, Yard's Appeal, 249, 252, 257 Yard v. Yard. 1034 Yaniall's Appeal, 1656, 1673, 1694 Yaniold v. Moorhouse, 260, 272, 1056, 11 13, 1677 Yates V. Been, 1032, 1034 V. Cromptz/n, 181 1 V. Houston, 752 V. Joyce, 2187 r'. Kinney, 13 15, 13 ^7 V. Mallen, 2259 V. Mullen, 99, loio V. Paddock, 865 V. Woodruff, 2154 7'. Yates, 1549. »6o3 Yates County National Bank -v. Carpenter, 1427 Yeackel v. Litchfield, 1768 Yeagerz/. Weaver, 1246 Yeaker's Heirs v. Yeiker's Heirs, 216 Yeakle v. Jacob, 55 Yeatman v. Woods, 1905 Yeaton. In re, 1115 Yelland v. Fichs, 1845 Yellow Jacket S. M. Co. v. Stevenson, 127S Yelverton v. Steele, 2297 Yelverton v. Yelverton, 1541, 1552 Yesler v. Hochslettler, 1948 Yoe V. Dyer, 1285 V. Mercerau, 781 York V. Jones, 1120, 1165 Yost z;. Devault, 1450, 1473, 1476, 1484, 1485, 1487 Youle V. Richards, 2050 Youmans v. Caldwell, 46 V. Wagener, 804, 902 Youn z*. Flinn, 1583, 1640 Young, In re, 399 Young V. Adams, 1S82, 1912 V. Boston, 22 V. Boyd, 945 V. Bradley, 1797 V. Carter, 794 V. Carter, 794 V. Clark, 1758 V. Clippinger, 2321 V. Dake, 971, 997 V. Davis, 59 1 V. De Bruhl, 1909, 1917, 1919 V. Frost, 1986 V. Gammel, 1922 V. Gregory, 772, 920 V, Hargrave, 1081 V. Hughes, 1621 V. Ingle, 1278, 1291 V. Keigliley, 1671 T. Langbein, 6S9 V. Mackall, 1781 V. Marshall, 285 V. Martin, 347, 1632 V. Mclntyre, 703 V. McKee, 201 1 V. McKenzie, 2324 V. Millar, 2103, 2105, 2107, 2108 V. Naylor, 883 V. Northern Illinois Canal & Iron Co., 2066 V. Peachy, 1616, 1633 V. Polack, 1893 V. Radford, 1024, 1361 V. Ringo, 2349 V. Smith, 1125, 1271, 1310, 1350 •u, Spencer, 564 V. Tarbell, 7S3, 801, S20, 847,861, 863 V. Vough, 2177 V. Waterpark, 1783 7'. Williams, 20^3, 2172 V. Wolcott, 721 z/. Wood, 2008 V. Young, 1274, 1277, 1285, 1296, 1304, I3»7> 1.319, 1324* 1336, 15S7. IS93. 1594,1662 Youngblood v. Eubank, 128, 130 Younghusband v. Gisbome. 253 Youngman v. Elmira & W. R. Co., 98, 1998, 2077 Youngs V. Carter, 727, 912 V. Trustees Public Schools, 2072 Youngworth v. Jewel, 1936 Yunker v. Nichols, 2241 z. Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co., 1041 7'. Morris, 1576 V. Morris & E. R. Co., 1595, 1596 V. Salter, 2180, 2197 V. Smith, 719, 839 Zabriskie's Exrs. v. Wetmore, 1739 Zacharias z>. Zacharias, 1781 Zaegal 7/. Kuster, 948,2170 Zamboco7'. Cassavetti, 1814 Zane v. Kenedy, 1816, 201 1 Zebach v. Smith, 1663, rSio. 1813, 1841, 1843 Zebach's Lessee v. Smith, 1730, 18^5 Zeiissweiss v. James, 1603, 1604, 16S1 CCXXXIV TABLE OF CASES. References are lo pages. Zeiter v. Bowman, 1027, 2152 Zell V. Rearae, 1357 Zellers v. Beckman, 1409, 1524 z/..Eckert, 1782 Zeller's Lessee 7'. Eckert, 1150, 1917,2093, 2095 Zentmyer v. Mittewar, 2005 Ziegler v. Grim, igSx Zimmer v. Paulry, 1500 Zimmerman v. Anders, 312 V. Marchland, 1159 z'. Schoenfeldt, 588, 670 Zinc Co. z*. Franklinite Co., 92, 2233, 2237 Zirkle v. McCue, igSo Zoller V. Ide, 2013 Zorntlein z/. Bram, 1932 Zottman v. San Francisco, 1029 Zouch Tj. Parsons, 985, 1030, 1827, 2341 V. Woolston, 1806, 1843 Zuchtmann v. Roberts, 2301 Zule V. 2ule. 770, 883, 984, 1116 Zuverz/. LyonSj 1592, 2045 BOOK L INTRODUCTORY. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY. Property — Generally. Same — Classes of property. Same — Blackstone's definition— Exclusive ownership Same — Austin's definition — Restricted property. Early history of propei-ty. Same — Evolution of private property. Eights of property and hereditary patrimony. Same — Recognition of right of private property. Same — Alienation and devise. Same — The retrait. Theories of the origin of private property in land. Same — 1. The discovery theory. Same — 2. The occupation theory. Same — 3. The labor theory. Same — i. The theory of contract. Same — 5. The lex theory. Same — 6. The natural-economic theory. Same — 7. The natural rights theory. Same — 8. The government grant theory. Real and personal property — Distinction and devolution. Definition of real property. Same — " Land " and " real estate." Same — Maryland doctrine. Same — Tenements. Same — Hereditaments. Same — Same — Division of hereditaments. Section 1. Property— Generally.— Property in the ab- stract is the right or interest which a person may have Sec. 1. Sec. 2. Sec. 3. Sec. 4. Sec. 5. Sec. 6. Sec. 7. Sec. 8. Sec. 9. Sec. 10. Sec. 11. Sec. 12. Sec. 13. Sec. 14. Sec. 15. Sec. 16. Sec. 17. Sec. 18. Sec. 19. Sec. 20. Sec. 21. Sec. 32. Sec. 23. Sec. 34. Sec. 25. Sec. 26. PROPERTY A GENERIC TERM. [Book I. in, to, or over anything to the exclusion of all others,^ and embraces every species of valuable thing ^ that may be made the subject of exclusive ownership.^ The Vford property is a term of the largest import, is nomen gcner- alissimum, and extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and embraces real * and personal property, ' Rigney v. City of Chicago, 103 111. 77 ; Jackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel, 17 John. (N. Y.) 281, 283 ; Morrison v. Semple, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 94, 98 ; SoTilard v. United States, 29 U. S. (4 Pet.) 511 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 938; Doe V. Langlands, 14 East 370 ; Doe V. Lainckbury, 11 East 290, 518. 'Walker's Am. L. (9th ed.) 306, §133. ' Stanton v. Lewis, 36 Conn. 444, 449; Caro V. Metropolitan Railway Co.,46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 188; s.c. 19 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 376. See : Barker v. State, ex rel. Mills, 109 Ind. 58 ; s.c. 9 N. E. Rep. 711. * For cases in which the word "property" has been adjudged to include land, see : Soulard v. United States, 39 U. S. (4 Pet.) 511 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 938; Edwards v. Barnes, 3 Bing. N. C. 253 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 534 ; Doe V. Morgan, 6 Bam. & C. 513 ; S.C. 9 D. & R. 633 ; 13 Eng. 0. L. 335 ; Doe V. Langlands, 14 East 370 ; Doe V. Lainckbury, 11 East 890. For cases in which held to pass a fee, see : Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170, 173; Lincoln v. Lincoln, 107 Mass. 590; Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 171. Compare: Wheeler?;. Dunlap, 13 B. Men. (Ky.) 291 ; Howland v. Rowland, 100 Mass. 332; Hurdle v. Outlaw, 2 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 75 ; Chapman ■!;. Prickett, 6 Bing. 602 ; s.c. 4 M. & P. 404 ; 19 Eng. C. L. 273 ; Bang V. George, L. R. 5 Ch. Div. 627 ; s.c. 36 L. T. N. 8. 759 ; 23 Moak's Eng. Rep. 364 ; Doe, ex d. Bunny v. Rout, 2 Marsh. 397 ; s.c. 7 Taunt. 79 ; 3 Eng. C. L. 269. " Property " is equivalent to " estate," and operates to pass the interest as well as the land. Hunt V. Hunt, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 190; Morris v. Henderson, 37 Miss. 492; Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ; Pippin V. Ellison, 12 Ired. (N. C.) L. 61 ; s.c. 55 Am. Deo. 403 ; Hurdle v. Outlaw, 3 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 75 ; Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23 ; Morrison v. Semple, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 94; Rosseter v. Simmons, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 452 ; Den V. Payne, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.) 104; Mayo ■;;. Carringfcon, 4 Call (Va.) 472; Doe d. Booley v. Roberts, 11 Ad. & E. 1000 ; s.c. 3 Per. & D. 578 ; 39 Eng. C. L. 534 ; Bentley v. Oldfield, 19 Beav. 225; Footncr v. Cooper, 3 Drew. 7 : Roe V. Pattisoji, 10 East 331 r Patton V. Randall, 1 Jac. & W. 189; Nicholls V. Butcher, 18 Ves. 193. " Property " as applied to land. — The Supreme Court of the United States say in the case of Soulard v. United States, 39 U. S. (4 Pet.) 511 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 938, that the term " property," as applied to lands, compre- hends every species of title, in- choate or complete ; that it is supposed to embrace also all rights which lie in contract. Those which are executory as well as those which are exe- cuted. Chap. I. g§ 2, 3.] CLASSES OF PEOPERTY. 3 easements, franchises, and all incorporeal heredita- ments ^ ; and includes things in possession and things in exi)ectation.2 When applied to land, it comprehends every species of title, complete and inchoate, as well as all those rights which lie in contract, those which are executory as well as those which are executed.^ Sec. 2. Same— Classes of property.— Property is divided into two great classes, known as things real and things per- sonal. The class of things real includes every valuable thing of a fixed and inunovable nature, as well as every thing pertaining thereto, and passes under the general de- scription of "lands, tenements, and hereditaments," or simply as " realty " or " real estate. " Things personal in- clude all those things of an unfixed or movable nature, and pass under the general description of "goods and chattels," or simply "personalty."* There is a class of property which has been said to occupy a sort of interme- diate position between realty and personalty, some of which are called " chattels real," others " heirlooms," and others still "fixtures" ;^ but these are thought all to be properly classed and treated under the head of realty. Sec. 3. Same — Blackstone's definition— Exclusive owner- ship.— Property has been defiued by Blackstone ^ as " that sole and despotic dominion which one claims and ex- ercises over the external things of the world, in total ex- clusion of every other individual." This is the definition of exclusive ownership, or the absolute right of property ; but no such ownership does, or in the very nature of things can, exist in a civilized com m unity and under the ' Caro V MetropoUtan Elevated B. (10 Pet.) 326, 329 ; bk. 9 L. ed. Co., 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 138 ; 442 ; s c 19 Am L. EsR. N. S. 376 ; Delassus v. United States, 34 U. Boston & L. E. CoTtJ. Salem & S. (9 Pet.) 117, 133; bk. 9 L. L R. Co., 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 1, ed. 71, 77 ; 35 "•• ^"- ' -^ ' Soulard v. United States, 29 U. S. s Carlti)n v. Carlton, 72 Me. 162 ; (4 Pet.) 512 ; bk 7 L. ed. 398. Ide V. Harwood, 30 Minn. 195; ^ 2 Bl Com 16, 384 ; B.C. 14N. W. Eep. 884; Walker Am. L. (9th ed.) 306, Vniie-ban V. Murfeesboro, 96 N. § 122. ^^J'^of^'l g" 2 S E. Eep. 676 ; wllker's Am. L. (9th ed.) 306, Walker's' Am. L. (9th ed.) 306, 807, § 122. y 122. 5 Smith V. United States, 85 U. S. « 2 Bl. Com. c. 1. OBLIGATIONS OF LAND-OWNERS. [Book I. polity of a civilized government. Under the Roman sys- tem ^ of laws and the English, alike, there are certain duties and obligations enjoined upon every land-owner ; and certain rights and privileges which the public at large have in his property. All property is acquired and held under the tacit understanding that it shall not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others, or so as to destroy or greatly impair the public rights and interests of the com- munity.^ The maxim of the common law is "sic utere tuo, ut alienum non Isedas, " use your own so as not to injure another's property.^ Private property must ever be held subject to the exercise of such rights as are for the common benefit.* No principle is better established than that the legislature may make what are called police regulations, declaring from time to time in what manner property may be used and enjoyed,^ so as to prevent its ' See : Cushing's Domat, pt. I. , bk. ii., tit. 6. ' Commonwealth v. Tewkesbury, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 55, 57. See : Henry v. City of Newbury- • port, 149 Mass. 583, 585 ; s.c. 32 N. E. Rep. 75 ; Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co., 144 Mass. 523, 530 ; s.c. 59 Am. Rep. 113 ; 11 N. E. Rep. 939; Bancroft v. Cambridge, 136 Mass. 438, 441 ; Commonwealth v. Intoxicating Liquors, 115 Mass. 153 ; s.c. sub nom. Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 35 ; bk. 34 L. ed. 989 ; Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315, 318 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 694; Boston V. Richardson, 105 Mass. 351, 363 ; City of Salem v. Eastern R. Co., 98 Mass. 431, 443 ; s.c. 96 Am. Dec. 650. ' Commonwealth v. Tewkesbury, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 55, 57. See: Kerr's "Adjudicated Woi'ds, Phrases, and Apphed Max- ims." * Commonwealth v. Carter, 133 Mass. 13. See : Bancroft v. Cambridge, 136 Mass. 438, 441. 'Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 339, 240; s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 37; Bancroft v. Cambridge, 136 Mass. 348, 441. See : Lakeview v. RosehiU Cem- etery, 70 111. 193 ; State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 ; Merrifield v. Worcester, 110 Mass. 216; Hale V. Lawrence, 31 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 714; s.c. 33 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 590; 57 Am. Dec. 430; Thorpe v. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 37 Vt. 140. Salus populi supremus lex. — " The maxim of the law, ' Salus pop- uli suprema lex,' should not be disregarded. It is the great principle on which the statutes for the security of the people are based. It is the foundation of criminal law in all govern- ments of all civilized countries, and of other laws conducive to the safety and consequent happiness of the people. This power has always been exer- cised, and its existence cannot be denied." State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 ; Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 354, 360; Commonwealth v. Blodgett, 53 Mass. (13 Met.) 56, 83; Taylor v. Inhabitants of Ply- mouth, 49 Mass. (8 Met.) 463, 465 ; Marlatt v. Warwick, 19 N. J. Eq. Chap. I. § 4.] • AUSTIN'S DEFINITION OF PEOPERTY. use from being injurious to the equal enjojinent by- others of their property,^ and, in the exercise of this police power may even destroy private property altogether, when such a step is necessary for the protection of the public.^ Sec. 4. Same — Austin's definition — Restricted property. — Property, as known to us, is always a limited or restrict- ed interest in some tangible or intangible thing, and may properly be defined to be the right to use and deal with a given thing or subject in a manner and to an ex- tent that is indefinite, though not unlimited. Austin has defined property ^ to be "a right imparting to the owner (4 C. E. Gr.) 439, 454 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 434 ; American Print Works v. Law- rence, 33 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 590, 607; Hale V. Lawrence, 33 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 590 ; s.c. 57 Am. Deo. 430; Doe d. Wooden v. Shot well, 33 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 465, 474; Seifert v. City of Brooklyn, 101 N. Y. 136, 144; s.c. 54 Am. Rep. 664 ; 4 N. E. Rep. 331 ; 3 Cent. Rep. 138 ; Matter of Cheeseborough,78 N. Y. 332, 237 ; Richards v. Mayor of New York, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 315 33y* Kelse'y v. King, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 410, 418 ; s.c. 11 Abb. (N. Y.) Pr. 180, 186 ; Donahue v. Mayor of New York, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 68 ; Wilson V. Mayor of New York, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 595, 598 ; s.c. 43 Am. Deo. 719; Doellner v. Tynan, 38 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 176 ; Mayor of New York v. Lord, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 285, 297 ; Mayor of New York v. Slack, 3 Wheel. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 237, 254; State V. Yopp, 97 N. C 3 Am. St. Rep. 305 Rep. 458 ; Maynard v. Valentine, 3 ; s.c. 3 Pac. Rep. 195, 199 ; State V. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179 ; s.c. 10 S. E. Rep. 385 ; 6 L. R. A. 621 ; 41 Alb. L. J. 51. United States v. Harmon, 45 Fed. 477; s.c. ; 2 S. E. 3 Wash. Rep. 414 ; s.c. 13 Crim. L. Mag. 538; Kerr's " Adjudicated Words and Phrases, and Applied Maxims," The Century, vol. 45, p. 150. From this principle ai'e derived those rules which subordinate private rights as to persons and property to public good. See : Pom. Minn. L. (2d ed.) § 913. " A pond of stagnant water may endanger the health of the neighborhood, and the public may cause it to be drained at once, and for that purpose may dig the necessary drains, and the land may be entered with and for that purpose, under the police power, without com- Eensation." Matter of Cheese- orough, 78 N. Y. 333, 238. > Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247, 258; Grace v. Newton Board of Health, 135 Mass. 490, 493 ; Bancroft v. Cambridge, 126 Mass. 428; Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 86. 5 Carleton v. Rugg, 149 Mass. 550 ; s.c. 32 N. E. Rep. 55, Citing: Bancroft v. Cambridge, 126 Mass. 428 ; Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 694 ; Attorney-General v. Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass. 339 ; s.c. 6 Am. Rep. 327 ; Winthrop v. Farrar, 93 Mass. (11 AUen) 398 ; District Attorney v. Lynn & Bos- ton R. Co., 83 Mass. (16 Gray) 243. ' Jurisprudence, vol. II., § 1103. 6 EARLY HISTORY OF PROPERTY. [Book I. a power of indefinite user, capable of being transmitted to universal successors by way of descent, and imparting to the owner the power of disposition, from himself and his successors per universitatem, and from all other persons who have a spes successionis under any existing concession or disposition, in favor of such person or series of persons as he may choose, with the like capacities and powers as he had himself, and under such conditions as the municipal or particular law allows to be annexed to the dispositions of private persons." Sec. 5. Early bistory of property — The early history of property remains yet to be written. Our present knowl- edge of property is derived from our own laws regulating property, founded upon the Eoman law, and the early Eng- lish law. Both of these systems of law grew up in a period when every recollection of the early condition of property and people had perished. When jurists are asked to ac- count for the origin of property rights, they have recourse to what they are pleased to term " the state of nature," from which they derive directly absolute individual ownership — a sort of quiritary dominium. This method of accounting for the origin of individual property in land is lame and unsatisfactory in this, that it ignores the well-established principles of evolution, — which apply. as well to the differentiation of social relations and to the individualizing of property, as to the development of all vegetable and animal organism, — disregards the law's gradual development found throughout all history, politi- cal and sociological, and contradicts facts now well estab- lished and well known. It is only after a series of evo- lutions, and that of a comparatively recent period, that individual ownership in land has arisen. The historical researches of all who have looked into the subject coin- cide in establishing the fact that originally the soil be- longed in common to tribes, communities, or kinsmen, ^ and that the separate ownership, as it now exists amongst 1 Sir Henry Maine says : " Property but to large estates." Ancient once belonged not to individ- Law, p. 368. uals, nor to isolated families, Chap. I. § 6.] EVOLUTION OF PRIVATE PEOPEETY. 7 most civilized people,^ is of comparatively modern growth.^ Sec. 6. Same— Evolution of private property While primitive man subsisted on wild food, — living by the chase, by fishing, or by gathering wild fruit, — there was no occasion for, or thought of, appropriating the soil. Under the pastoral system that followed, the notion of property in the soil began to spring up, but was always confined to the lands on which the herds of the nomadic tribes grazed ; but even then the idea that any individual could claim a part of the soil as exclusively his own did not occur to any one. The very conditions of pastoral life itself were opposed to such a conception. Even when a portion of the soil was put temporarily under cultiva- tion, the territory remained the undivided property of the tribe or clan occupying it ; and when the land was divided into parcels and distributed by lot among the several families, only a temporary occupancy was allowed to the individual, while the soil remained the collective property of the tribe or clan, to whom it returned, from time to time, for a new partition and distribution. This is the system Tacitus describes among the Germanic tribes,^ and which exists to-day in the Eussian m ir. Another stage in the individualization of private prop- erty in the soil leaves the parcels in the hands of groups of large patriarchal families dwelling in the same house and working together for the benefit of all, as in I Where private ownership of land is system of property that pre- not.— There are some ooun- vailed before feudalism over- tries, which are recognized as ran Europe, civilized, in portions of which, ' See : Spencer's " Principles of So- at last, the private ownership ciology," vol. II., c. XV. ; Sir- oflanddoesnotprevail: at least Henry Maine's "Early Hist, not in the sense in which we Inst.,"Lect. I.,ef seg. ; Id. '■ Vil- know it. Such as the Eussian lage Communities," Lect. III. ;. mir (see : Wallace's "Eussia," Id. " Ancient Law," Lect. c VIII.; Geddie's "Eussian VIIL ; Freeman's " Hist. Norm_ Empire," c. IX.; Laveleye's Conq.," vol. V. 463 ; Laveleye's " Primitive Property," c. III.) " Primitive Property," o. I., Dr;. and the Swiss a/Zmevfd. Lavel- Mayer's " Das Eigenthum nacb eye's " Primitive Property," c. den verschredenen Weltans- V Switzerland enjoys the dis- chanungen, Freiburg, I. Bl. tinction of standing alone in (1871) ; Professor Nasse's Ue- the world as & land that has ber die mitelalLlerliche Feldge- maintained both free political meinschaft in England." institutions and the internal ' Tac. Germ. c. 31. 8 EVOLUTION OF PRIVATE PEOPEETY. [BOOK I. France and Italy during the Middle Ages, ^ and in Switz- erland at the present time. Then came William ithe Con- queror, and the feudal dispensation, ^ and finally indi- vidual heredity of property appears. Through these long stages of incipient civilization, the impediments in the way of securing private property in lands were great and the incentives small, because, as Herbert Spencer says, while subsistence on wild food continued, the wandering horde inhabiting a given area must continue to make joint use of the area ; both because no claim could be shown by any member to any portion, and because the marking out of small divisions, if sharing were agreed upon, would be im- practicable. Where pastoral life has arisen, ability to drive herds hither and thither within the occupied region is nec- essary. In the absence of cultivation, cattle and their owners could not survive were each owner restricted to one spot. There was nothing feasible but united possession of a wide tract. And when there comes a transition to the agricultural stage, either directly from the hunting stage or indirectly through the pastoral stage, several causes conspire to prevent, or to check, the growth of private land- ownerships. There is first the traditional usage. Joint ownership continues after circumstances no longer ren- der it imperative, because departure from the sacred ex- ample of forefathers is resisted. Sometimes the resist- ance is insuperable ; as with the Eechabites and the people of Petra, who by their vow were not allpwed to possess either vineyards or cornfields or houses, but were bound to continue the nomadic life. And obviously, where the transition to a settled state is effected, the sur- vival of habits and sentiments established during the nomadic state, must long prevent possession of land by individuals. Moreover, apart from opposing ideas and customs, there are physical difficulties in the way. Even did any member of a pastoral horde, which had become partially settled, establish a claim to exclusive possession of one part of the occupied area, little advantage could be gained before there existed the means of keeping out the Laveleye's "Primitive Property," -Treated fully «osf, Bk. II., cc. cc. XV., XVI. II. & III., §§ 153-218. Chap. I. § 7.] HEREDITARY PROPERTY AND PATRIMONY. 9 animals belonging to others. Common use of the greater part of the surface must long continue from mere ina- bility to set up effectual divisions. Only small portions could at first be fenced off. Yet a further reason why land-owning by individuals, and land-owning by families, was established very slowly, was the fact that at first each particular plot had but a temporary value. The soil is soon exhausted ; and in the absence of advanced arts of culture becomes useless. Such tribes as those of the Indian hills show us that primitive cultivators uniformly follow the practice of clearing a tract of ground, raising from it two or three crops, and then abandoning it ; the implication being that whatever private claim had arisen, lapses, and the surface, again becoming wild, reverts to the community.^ Sec. 7. Right of property and hereditary patrimony. — Primitive nations, in obedience to an instinctive sen- timent, recognized in every man a natural right to oc- cupy a portion of the soil from which he might derive the means of subsistence from his labor. ^ At first they divided the collective property of the tribe equally among the heads of families, instead of parceling it out to the in- dividual members, and giving them a private property in it. Traditions of this distribution are common among the Greeks. We meet with it among the inhabitants of Cyclades,^ of Tenedos, Lesbos and the neighboring islands.* It is also said to have existed in Sardinia,^ and was found in the Peloponnese when overrun by the Dorians.^ This system still obtains in the Eussian mir,'' the Swiss allmend,^ the Javanese sawahs,^ and among the southern, slaves. ^" Publicists, economists, and statesmen vie with one another in repeating that without property there can be 'See: "Principles of Sociology," " Laveleye's " Primitive Property," (1st ed..) vol. II. c. XV., § 149. 538. ' Wallace's "Russia," c. VIII. ; 2 Laveleye's " Primitive Property," Stepniack's "Russia under the 333. Tsars," c. I. 3 Diodorus, v. 84 ; ' Laveleye's " Primitive Property," * Diodorus, v. 81, 88, c. V. » Diodorus, v. 15. " Id. c. IV. ■» Id. c. XIIL 10 EIGHT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND. [BOOK I. no liberty. Property, or the right of regarding as one's own determinate portions of matter, of enjoying it or disposing of it at will, without trenching upon the rights of another, always constitutes an essential foundation of a true form of society. Some of our modern thinkers, like Herbert Spencer,^ Henry George,^ Professor de Laveleye,* M. Huet,* and the German philosopher Fichte,^ maintain that rightly there can be no private property in land.^ Sec. 8. Same— Eeeognition of tlie right of private prop- erty.— With the troubles of the philosophers we have noth- ing to do. It is a condition and not a theory that confronts us, a settled system of laws with which we have to deal ; and, so far as this treatise is concerned, we have no more interest in their speculative theories than we have in Bishop Wycliffe's "inheritance of grace," or his difficul- ties with the Church at Eome. It may be remarked in passing, however, that in all ages and all degrees of civil- ization, from the Bedouins of the Arabian desert to the Arawaks of the North American plains ; "^ from the Bush- ' See :" Social Statistics " (1st ed.), ed that the existing titles to c. IX. Herbert Spencer's recent such property are legitimate, thought and investigation has Should any one think so, let him greatly modified his views on look in the chronicles. Vio- the question of private property lence, fraud, the prerogative in land, and caused the erratic of force, the claims of superior- Henry George to bring out his cunning, — these are the sources caustic criticisrn entitled "A to which those titles may be Perplexed Philosopher ; " a traced. The original deeds work as unlearned, unreliable, were written with the sword, and misleading as any of that rather than with the pen ; not author's productions. lawyern, but soldiers, were the - " Progress and Poverty," 307 ; conveyancers, blows were the "A Perplexed Philosopher," jjos- current coin given in payment ; sim. and for seals, blood was used '"Primitive Property," particu- in preference to vyax. Could larly pp. xxv. to xliv. valid claims be thus consti- ■• Le Regne social du christianisrae, tuted ? Hardly. And if not, bk. III., c. V. vrhat becomes of the preten- ' Der geschlossene Handelstaat, B. sions of all subsequent holders I., K. 1, §§ 399, 402; K. 7, § of estates so obtained? Does 446. sale or bequest generate a right " In the original edition of his where it did not pj-eviously ex- " Social Statistics," Herbert ist? Would the original claim- Spencer said: "Passing from ants be nonsuited at the bar the consideration of the possi- of reason, because the thing ble to that of the actual, we stolen from them had changed find yet further reason to deny hands ? " Chap. IX. , § 8, p. 138. the rectitude of property in ^ Spencer's "Principles of Sociol- land. It can never be pretend- ogy," vol. II., c. XV. Chap. I. § 9.] ALIENATION AND DEVISE OF LANDS. 11 men ^ of Africa to the animals of the prairie,'^ the right of private property is recognized and enforced, in accord- ance with the light and civilization of the people, the intelligence and progress of the animal.^ The evolution of private property in land has been set forth in great detail by a Belgian, Professor de Laveleye, in a work full of learning and research, but permeated with the pernicious influence of modern socialistic ideas.* Sec. 9. Same — Alienation and devise — Although the right of private ownership in land has long been recog- nized, it is only in comparatively recent times that the right of alienation and devise have been accorded to the possessor. Thus it was not allowed in ancient Germany * or Gothland,^ was unknown in ancient India ^ and Scot- land,^ was formerly forbidden in Sparta,^ and is not rec- ognized in the early laws of the Visigoths, as promul- gated by Blume.^" Alienation was prohibited by the Loc- rian and Leucadian laws," and the ordinances of Phido of Corinth. 12 1 Lich. vol. II. 194. 5 Kerr's " Black Hills," c. HI. 3 It is a well-known fact that in- telligent animals display a sense of proprietorship, not only of movable property, but of real estate as well. Thus, the dog understands the exclusive possession of property. The domesticated dog fights in de- fense of his master's clothes, and the untamed dog for his lair or his burrow : the swans of each reach on the Thames river resist invading swans from other reaches, and the public dogs of Constantinople attack dogs from other quar- ters, if they encroach. Spen- cer's " Principles of Sociology," vol. L, § 292; Id. vol. II., § 536; Kerr's "Black Hills," c. III. * "Primitive Property," passuJi. ^Canciani, Bar. leg. antiq., vol. III., pp. 31-36; Laws of the Thuringians, tit. XIII. ; Walter, Corpus jus. Germ., vol. I., p. 380 ; Laws of the Saxons, tit. XV. ; Pretz, Mon. Germ, Leg. tit. m.,pp. 532 to 568. ' Guta-Lagh (Schildenei's trans- lation), Greifswald, 1818, p. 59; Mirror of Saxony, lib. I. , art. 34. i See Colebrooke, " A Digest of Hindu Law," IL 161, art. xxxiii., Orianne, Traite origi- nal des successions d'aprfes le droithindou : extrait du Mitac- shara de Vijuyaeswara (Paris, 1844), pp. -49, 50 ; Pross' onno Coomar Tagore, "A succinct Commentary of the Hindoo Law prevalent in Mithila, from the original Sanscrit of Vachaspati Misra (Calcutta, 1863), p. 310 ; Caract. collect des premiferes propri^tes immobiUferes," by VioUet, p. 30. 'Leges Burgorum, c. XXXVIII.; Honard, Trait^s sur les cou- tumes Anglo-Normades, tom. I., pp. 449, 450. ' Plutarch's Lycurgus, agis ; 1 Plut. Lives (Clough's ed.) 83-126; Aristotle's Politics, II. , p. 10. '» Blume, Die westgothische Antique Oder das Gesetzbush Reocared des Ersten(1847), c. 294, pp. 18, 20 " Aristotle's Politics, II. 4, 4. 1^ Id. II. 3, 7. 12 ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND. [Book I. Primitive law was as intolerant of testamentary de- vises as it was of sales, because the transmission of land was generally regarded as a matter of public interest, the regulation of which was not left to individual con- veniences or caprice.^ This was not the case, however, in Athens ^ or Corinth.^ Such a disposition of property was unknown in Germany,* ancient Hindoo,^ Eome be- fore the Twelve Tables," Sparta," or Thebes.^ Sec. 10. Same — The retrait — The retrait, or the right of claiming land that has been aliened to a stranger, recognized in the inhabitants of the village communities of pastoral and early agricultural times, was found everywhere,* and exists to-day in most Mussulman coun- tries, in Algeria, India, and Java,^" and was still in force in Illyria and Italy under the emperors, being abolished by a constitution concerning these provinces, A. D. 391,^^ and survived in France until within a very recent period.^ Sec. 11. Theories of the origin of private property in land. — Full ownership in the individual, as applied to the soil, is of quite recent creation. Agriculture commenced and was developed under the system of common ownership and periodical partition. In the Eoman Empire, which be- queathed to us the theory of quiritary property in land, the soil was originally occupied by title of usufruct. ^^ In the Middle Ages, the free-allod was the exception ; the 'Laveleye's "Primitive Property," 'Laveleye's " Primitive Property," 155. 156. ° Plato's Lavrs, XI. ; Jewett's Plato, « lb. vol. IV., p. 434, et seq. ; Flu- 'Laveleye's " Pi-imitive Pi-operty," larch's Life of Solon, 1 Plut. 153. Lives (Clough's ed.), 168-303. '» Sir William Hay Macnaghten, 5 Laveleye's " Primitive Property," "Principles of Hindu and Mo- 156. hammedan Law," c. IV., pp. ■* Nullum testamentum ; Tacitus, 204, 205. Germ., XX ; " Laveleye's " Primitive Property," Sir Henry Maine's "Ancient 152. Law,-' p. 173. ''^ See : Bourdot de Richebourg, vol. = See: Sir George Campbell's " Sys- I., pp. 306, 347; Libri foudo- tem of Land Tenure in Various ruin, lib. V. , tits. XIII. , XIV. Countries," in Cobden Club ^^li is said by Gaius, II. 7 : "In vol., p. 172. solo provinciali, dominium pop- •Fustel de Coulonges, "La cite iiU Romani est vel Csesaris, nos antiq. " (3ded),p. 89. autem possessionem tantum et usuf ructum habere videmm-. " Chap. L § 12.] RIGHT OF DISCOVERY. I3 precarium, and the beneficium, the fief,— that is, a sort of hereditary usufruct,— was the rule ; and agricultural labor was executed by " maiumortables," serfs, who, so far from being owners of the soil they cultivated, were not eA-en owners of their own movables ; for the right of succession was denied them.^ Various systems or theo- ries have been put forward in explanation of the origin and justice of private property in land, the principal ones of which merit a moment's consideration. They are : 1. The discovery theory ; 2. The occupation theory ; 3. The labor theory ; 4. The contract theory ; 5. The lex theory ; 6. The natural-economic theory ; 1. The natural rights theory ; and 8. The government grant theory. Sec. 12. Same— 1. The discovery theory — The theory of title by discovery is one that our English ancestors main- tained, in common with the other nations of Europe, in regard tc the American soil. On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all ; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the Old World found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensa- tion to the inhabitants of the l^^ew World, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pur- suit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should ac- knowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between ' Laveleye's " Primitive Property," 338. 11 TITLE BY REASON OF OCCUPATION. [Book t themselves. This principle was that ''discovery" gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European gov- ernments ; which title might be consummated by posses- sion.^ But this theory, so far at least as it applies to this country, has no foundation in any known principle of jurisprudence or Christian policy. It was enforced and maintained only by the might of the sword and the scent of carnage. It never had any foundation in prin- ciple, and is indefensible, except on the theory that "might makes right," under which, Henry Lichten- stein ^ tells us, the more powerful among the savages of South America compel the weaker to resign their weapons, wives, and even their children. Sec. 13. Same — 2. The occupation theory — Some mod- ern jurists, as well as those of ancient Rome, consider the occupancy of things and lands without an owner as the principal title conferring individual property. This theory might be justifiable if any lands could be found that were not, in theory or in fact, already occupied. History shows us that since the dispersion at the build- ing of the Tower of Babel, when the tribes of Israel were scattered throughout the world, the earth has never been regarded by men as res nulUvs. The hunting-grounds of those tribes that lived by the chase, and the pasture- lands of those that lived from the produce of their flocks, have always been recognized as the collective domain of the tribe ; and this collective possession has continued in many instances, even after agriculture had begun to fertilize the soil. For this reason what is termed unoc- cupied land has never been regarded as without an owner. Everywhere, in former times as well as in our own, such land was considered as belonging to the com- munity or the state. Consequently there was no room in former times, any more than at the present day, for ac- ' Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U. S. =" Travels in South America," voL (8 Wheat.) 543, 572 ; bk. 5 L. II., p 194. ed. 681, 688. Chap. I. § 15.] THE LABOR AND CONTRACT THEORY. 15 quisition by occupancy. ^ Occupancy, being a fact re- sulting from force or chance, can give no basis for a title in the court of good conscience, and is inveighed against by philosophers of the Herbert Spencer type.^ Yet this is the only theory of the origin of the title of private property in land that Sir Henry Maine thinks it worth while to give consideration in his philosophic treatise on Ancient Law.^ Sec. li. Same — 3. The labor theory — Another class of philosophers and thinkers would make labor the basis of the right to the private ownership of land. This is the theory generally adopted by economists, because, since Adam Smith,* they have attributed to labor the production of all wealth. As expounded by John Locke ^ the theory is briefly this : God gave the soil to mankind at large, but as no one enjoys either the soil or that which it produces, unless he ba owner, individuals must be allowed the use, to the exclusion of all others. Every one has an exclusive right over his own person. The labor of his body and the work of his hands therefore are likewise his property. No one can have a greater right than he to that which he has acquired, especially if there remain a sufficiency of similar objects for others. According to this theory, labor establishes between man and the objects which he has transformed by his labor relations stronger than mere occupation, whether sym- bolic or actual, can give.® But this theory has been and is violently opposed by continental jurists,^ and the civil code has nothing to say in approval of it. Sec. 15. Same— 4. The theory of contract — It has been maintained by the philosopher Hobbes and others, that ' M. Thiers' " De la Propriete,'' See : M. Thiers' De la Propriete, passim ; P- 38. M. Renourd " Du Droit industri- "Locke's "Civil Government," c. el," passim; IV. ♦Spencer's "Social Statistics," c. « Roeder, " Die Gruentziige des Na- IX. turereohts," § 79. See : ante, § 7. '' See : M. Warukoenig's " Doctrinia » Maine's " Ancient Law," p. 338. jurists philosophica," p. 121 ; *" Wealth of Nations" (Ward & Ahern's " Naturrecht,"i)assim. Locke's 1 vol. ed.), p. 2, passim. 1 IQ THE LAW THEORY— BENTHAM. [BOOK I. men abandoned the primitive community of property in consequence of a convention, or contract, and that there- by all private property in land began. ^ The great trouble with this theory is that it requires us to establish the reality of a convention, which cannot be done, because this consent or contract is not an historic fact, but simply a juristic necessity engendered by the theory. To our way of thinking, this fact is fatal to the theory. Sec. 16. Same— 5. The lex theory — Many writers, of various shades of opinion, without having recourse to ab- stract theories of natural justice, or to the obscurities of historical origins, have maintained the theory that prop- erty is the creature of law.'^ Bentham says ^ that property and law are born and must die together ; that before the law there was no property ; take away the law, all prop- erty ceases. He is of the opinion that " law alone has accomplished what all the natural feelings were not able to do. Law alone has been able to create a fixed and durable possession which deserves the name of property. The law alone could accustom men to submit to the yoke of foresight, at first painful to be borne, but afterwards agreeable and mild ; it alone could encourage in them labor superfluous at present, and which they are not to enjoy till the future." Montesquieu says * "that as men have renounced their natural independence to live under political laws, they have also renounced the natural com- munity of goods to live under civil laws. The former laws give them liberty, the latter laws give them prop- erty." Faucher declares ^ that the primitive community of goods has never been found in a state of nature ; and this is true as to personal property, but not as to landed property ; for this was collective everywhere in primitive times. * Sec. 17. Same— 6. The natural-economic theory Ac- • See Hobbes' "Works, vol. HI., c. " Bentham's "Works, vol. I., pp. XV. 307-309. 'See: Bossuet, "Polit. tWe del ■'Montesquieu, "Esprit des Lois," I'Eorite, lib. I., art. 3, 4 props.; lib. XXVI., c. 15. Hobbes' "Works, vol. XL, p. 84; "See: Dictionnaire de I'Economie Id. vol. IV , 164. politique, tit. " Propri^te." Chap. I. § 18.] NATURAL EIGHTS THEORY. 17 cording to certain economists, such as John Stuart Mill, Wilhelm Roscher, Adolph Wagoner, and others, human nature is such as to require property, because, without it there would he no stimulus to labor. Roscher says : "Just as human labor can only arrive at complete productivity when it is free, so capital does not attain to full productive power except under the system of free private property. Who would care to save and renounce immediate enjoyment, if ho could not reckon on future enjoyment ? " ^ This theory, by basing the right to private property on general utility, has the advantage of allowing successive improvements in existing institutions by the elimination of what is contrary to equity and against the general interest, and the introduction of modifications required by the conditions and wants of the community.^ Sec. 18. Same — 7. The natural rights theory — Another theory of the origin of individual property in land re- gards it as a natural right. According to this theory the personal right of man as determined by nature is, to pos- sess a sphere of action sufficient to supply him with the means of support. This physical sphere should therefore be guaranteed to every one, conditionally, however, on his cultivating it by his own labor. Thus all should labor, and all should also have wherewith to labor. The second in order of the four great German philosophers,^ maintains in his " Foundation of Natural Rights "* that; every man has an inalienable right to live by labor, and consequently to find the means of employing his. hands.'"' Hegel says^ that every one ought to be pos- ' Roscher, Syst. I., S§ 77, 82. = Kant, Fiolite, Schilling and Hegel. ^The student curious to pursue * Johann Gottlieb Fichte, "Grund- further this theory will find it lage des Naturrechts." well presented in a work enti- * The same author says in his work tl^d"Lehrbuch derpolitischen on the Fi-ench Revolution:; CEconomie, I. Gmndlegun," by " The transformation (pildungy Adolph Wagoner and Erwin of materials by our own efforts: j^asse ^ *''^® *'''^® juridical basis of See also two works of M. A. Sam- property, and the only natural ter one entitled " Die Social- one. He who does not labor- Lehre " and the other " Gesell- cannot eat, unless I give hiiu schaf tliches - und - private- Eig- food ; but he has no right to be- enthum," Leipzic, 1877. fed. He cannot justiy make- « " Rechtsphilosopliie," § 49. 13 GOVERNMENT GEANT THEORY. [Book I. sessed of property. The poet Schiller has the idea in two lines, which have been said to contain the whole philosophy of history on the subject : " Etwas muss er sein eigen nennen, Oder des Mensch wird, modern und brennen." ' Which may be liberally rendered : " Something a man must have his own to call, Or on slaughter and burnings at once he'll fall." Sec. 19. Same — 8. The government grant theory Ac- cording to Blackstone it is a fundamental principle of the English law, derived from the maxim of the feudal tenure, that the king was the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the land in the kingdom, and the source of all titles.^ This principle has been adopted in this country and applied to our republican form of government, and has become a settled fundamental doc- trine with us. The title to the lands in this country is derived by direct grant from our local governments, or from the federal government since the Revolution. Titles prior to that date were derived from the crown or the royal chartered governments originally established here.^ All titles to land in this country are at present held through government grant, either from the crown, through the colonial corporations and the colonial or pro- prietary authorities, or through the governments of the various states or of thfe United States.* others work for him. Every ment of the United States, vest man has over the material a valid title in the purchaser, world a primordial right of without a patent. ' appropriation,' and a right of Mitchell v. The United States, 34 property over such things only U. S. (9 Pet.) 711, 748, 756, as have been modified by 757 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 283, 296, 299, him." 300. ' Wallenstein, pt. I., Scenell. While this doctrine has been " See : 3 Bl. Com. 51, 53, 59, 86, questioned, the law is consid- 105. ered as well settled that pur- 3 Dearmas v. Mayor, etc., of New chases at India treaties with Orleans, 5 La. 182 ; the approbation of the govern- Jackson v. Waters, 12 John. (N. ment agent, carry a valid title Y ) 365 ; without the necessity of a Jackson v. Ingraham, 4 John. patent from the United States. (N. Y.) 163. Coleman v. Doe, 12 Miss. (4 Smed. Purchase at Indian treaties. — It has & M.) 40. been said that purchases at ■'Nature of Indian titles. — It is, said Indian treaties, under the com- by the supreme court of the petent sanction of the govern- United States in the case of Chap. I. § 20.] REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. 19 Sec. 20. Real and personal property— Distinction and dev- olution — There is now more personal property in this coun- try than there is real, but to the real property there still cling many of the ancient rules and laws, which invest it with an interest and importance not possessed by per- sonal property. Of these ancient laws none are more conspicuous than the feudal rule of descent, under which, in England, as modified by amending acts,^ when the owner dies intestate, his real property goes to his heir, and his personal property to the next of kin.^ In the United States, where there has been a greater breaking away from the feudal usages and customs, and a more thorough uprooting of the antiquated feudal laws, if the owner dies intestate his real property goes to his heirs and his personal property goes to his executor or administrator for distribution. In the United States the devolution of property by operation of law is regulated almost entirely by local statutes in the va- rious States. The majority, if not all, of these statutes are modeled after the English Statute of Distribution,^ which was borrowed from the civil law,* and are to be interpreted and applied according to the rules of the civil law rather than those of the common law.^ The provision of the English statute are pronounced by James Schouler,® one of those excellent enactments '^ following the Restoration, — one in striking contrast with the course of descent of the common law. Its great advantage seems to have been absolute equality at the expense of the fundamental rules of the common law, and it upsets Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U. S. (6 Cr.) = WilUams on Real Property, 10. 87 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 163, that tlie » 22& 33 Car. II. c. 3, § 10. nature of the Indian titles to * Just. Nov. 118 ; lands lying within the terri- 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 423. torial limits of a state are en- ' Palmer v. AUicock, 3 Mod. 58 ; titled to be respected by the Carter v. Crawley, 1 T. Raym. courts imtil legitimately ex- 496 ; tinguished, and that the title is Edwards v. Freeman, 3 Pr. Wm. not such as to be absolutely re- 436 ; pugnant to seisin in fee on the 3 Redf . on Wills, 433, pi. 3 ; part of the state within whose 1 Woerner's American Laws of Turisdiotion the lands are sit- Admrs. p. 131, g 64. iated. " Schouler's Ex. & Admr. § 495. ' 3 & 4 Will. rV. c. 106 ; ' Lord Hard wick says that it was Amended by 33 & 33 Vict. c. "very incorrectly penned" in 351, 8S 19 & 30. Stanley v. Stanley, 1 Atk. 457. 20 DEFINinON OF EEAL PROPEETY. [Book I. the old doctrine of primogeniture, the preference of males over females, the blood of the first purchaser, the rule that property never ascends, and the exclusion of the half-blood. 1 Sec. 21. Definition of real property— Real property, or real estate, is an estate in fee or for life in land ; ^ that is, something that may be held by tenure and passes to the heir of the possessor at his death instead of to his admin- istrator,^ and embraces lands, tenements and heredita- ments,* but does not comprehend terms for years, or any- thing short of a freehold estate.^ By the term land is ordinarily understood whatever is parcel of the terrestrial globe, or is permanently afl&xed to such parcel, whether by ordinary course of nature, — as grass, herbage, trees and water, or by the hand of man, — as buildings and fences ; <> and it not only includes the surface of the earth, but everything under it and over it, cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad ccelumJ Land is the most Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. flST. Y.) 554 ; ^ Goodrich v. Jones, 3 HiU (N. Y ) 143 ; ^ ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a, 6a. ' Gonnon v. Hargadon, 93 Mass. (10 Allen) 106, 109 ; Sargent v. Adams, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 73, 79 ; Stookwell V. Hunter, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 448, 455 ; Atkins V. Bordman, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 457, 467; s.c. 37 Am. Deo. 100; Stevens v. Paterson & N. E. Co. . 30 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. Gr.) 136, 136 ; s.c. 34 N. J. L. (5 Vr.) 533, 570 ; 3 Am. Eep. 360 ; Barnett v. Johnson, 15 N J. Ea (3 McCart.) 481, 489 ; Hoffman tj. Armstrong, 48 N. Y 301 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 537 affirm- ing 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 387, 338 ; People V. Central R. Co., 43 N. Y. 283, 396, reversing 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 478 ; s.c. 83 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 407 ; ^ ' Lampman v. Milks, 31 N. Y. 505, oil ; Auburn & C. P. R. Co. v. Doug- lass, .9 N. Y. 444 ; Mott V. Palmer, 1 N. Y, 569 ; Relyea v. Beaver, 34 Barb. (N Y \ 547.551; \ • ^•) ' Davis V. Rowe, 6 Rand. (Va.) 356, 361. ' 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 401. ' See : Mason's Estate, 4 Watts. (,Pa.) 346 ; Bijckeridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. Jr. 652; Wind V. Jekyl, 1 Pr. Wm. 575. * 2 Bl. Com. 16 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a. See : Van Rensselaer v. Pouoher, 6 Den. (N. Y.) 35. " Lands " hi England. — In England, since the passage of Lord Brougham's Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 21, § 4, the word "land" includes "messuages, tenements, hereditaments, houses and buildings, of any tenure, unless where there are words to exclude houses and buildings, or to restrict the meaning of tenements to some particular tenure." ChalUs' Real Prop. 36, 37. <> 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19, 30 ; 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 343 ; 3 Id. 401. See : Merry v. Hallet, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 497. « Mott V. Palmer. 1 N. Y. 564, 572 ; Thayer v. Wright, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 180; Chap. I § 22.] TERMS OF DESCRIPTION. . 21 firm inheritance, and is therefore said to be solum quia est solidimn.^ In its more limited sense, the term land denotes the quality and character of the interest or estate which the tenant may own in lands ; and when used to describe an estate, it is understood to denote a freehold estate at least. ^ Sec. 22. Same—" Iiand " and " real estate." — The terms "land " and " real estate," as used in the statutes of the various states of the Union, include every freehold estate and interest in land ; that is, all estates in fee or for life,* as well as a remainder in fee,* and should be construed as co-extensive in meaning with "lands, tenements, and hereditaments, " ^ and in some states is declared to include every estate, interest, and right, legal and equitable, in lands, tenements, and hereditaments, except such as are determined or extinguished by the death, intestate, of any one seized or possessed thereof, or in any manner entitled thereto, and except leases for years and estates for the life of another person. ® Some statutes, like those of Mis- souri, extend the term real estate so as to include chat- tels real 7 Kelsey v. King, 33 How. (N. Y.) * Jenkins v. Fahey, 78 N. Y. 855, Pr. 39, 48 ; B.C. 1 Transc. App. 863. (N. Y.) 183, 141 ; "4 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (8th ed.) 2461, Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. § 10 ; 1 Rev. Stats. Codes & L. Y.)554; 839, §88; N. Y. Code Civ. Ruckler v. HiUer, 4 Campb. 219 ; Proc. § 3. Baten's Case, 9 Co. 54 ; See : Gen. Stats. Ky. c. 21, § 13 ; In re Thornton, 4 Exoli. 822 ; Mass. Gen. Stats, c. 3, § 7 ; 2 Bl. Com. 17, 18 ; Ray v. Sweeney, 14 Bush. (Ky.) Broom's Max. 395 ; 1 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 388, 391 ; Kerr's " Adjudicated Words and Floyd v. Carow, 88 N. Y. 561, Phrases and Applied Max- 569 ; jjug " . Despard v. Churchill, 58 N. Y. Pom. Mun. L. (2d ed.) § 315 ; 192, 199 ; Shep. Touch. 90. Bliss v. Greeley, 45 N. Y. 671, ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a. 674 ; s.c. 6 Am. Rep. 157 ; » Johnson v. Richardson, 33 Miss. Wright v. Douglass, 2 N. Y. 873, 462 464. 376 ; 3 Jenkins v. Fahey, 73 N. Y. 355, Carter v. Burr, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 362. 65. The term " real estate," as used in Jenkins v. Fahey, 73 N. Y. 355, the New York Statutes, com- 862. This is but an elaboration prebends equitable as well as of the common law definition legal estates; L. 1843, c. 87, of the term S5 ■ 4N. Y. Rev. Stats. (8th ed.) Merry v. HaUet, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) .^25 ; 3 Rev. Stats. Codes & L. 497 of N Y 2952 § a. 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 401. 22 MARYLAND DOCTRINE— TENEMENT. [Book T. Sec. 23. Same— Maryland doctrine. —In an early Maryland case it is said that ' ' as between vendor and vendee, mort- gagor and mortgagee, and as regards the mere question of the title of the defendant, land, in the legal significa- tion, comprehends all ground, soil, or earth whatever ; all minerals are, in this sense, component parts of land ; and it comprehends tide- water rivers, lakes, and running streams, as so much land covered with water ; it includes all houses, fences, and structures upon the ground ; and it also embraces all vegetable productions, as trees, herbage, grass, etc., standing upon and growing out of the soil.^ If either the owner of the fee-simple, a partic- ular tenant, or even a wrong-doer builds a house, or an- nexes to a house then standing upon the land any glass windows, wainscot, benches, doors, vats, furnaces, or the like, they are thereby immediately blended with the land itself, become parcel of it, and vest in the owner of the inheritance.^ All these things are embraced by the phrase land, in the legal and comprehensive sense of that term."^ Sec. 24. Same— Tenement — The word ''tenement " is frequently used in a restricted sense, as signifying a house or building,* but it is also used in a much more enlarged sense, as signifying land, or any incorporeal inheritance, or anything of a permanent nature that may be holden by a tenure, ^ whether it be of a substantial kind, like > 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a. ' Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 62 ; 1 Co. Utt. (19th ed.) 53a. ' Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch. (Md.) 384; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 336, 359. '' See : Sacket v. Wheaton, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 103. ' Commonwealth v. Wise, 110 Mass. 181, 183 ; Sacket v. Wheaton, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 103, 105 ; 3 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 401. Includes shops of one room. — Un- der the Massachusetts liquor laws it has been held that a shop consisting of one room, and not forming a part of a dwelling-house, constitutes a tenement. Commonwealth v. Cogan, 107 Mass. 213 ; Citing : Commonwealth v. God- ley, 77 Mass. (11 Gray,) 454 ; Commonwealth v. McCaughey, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 396. Inclndes suite of rooms when. — Under a statute regulating the supply of water to the " occu- pant of a tenement," it has been held that the word " tene- ment" appUes to a suite of rooms in a model-tenement house, having separate water fixtures, and occupied by a separate tenant and his family, and containing the conven- iences of a common dweUing- house. Young V. Boston, 104 Mass. 95. Chap. I. § 25.] HEREDITAMENTS— WHAT INCLUDES. £3 lands and houses/ or of an unsubstantial and ideal kind, like commons, lands, offices, and the like.^ Kents says ^ that a tenement comprises everything which may be holden, so as to create a tenancy in the feudal sense of the word, and includes things incorporate, though they did not lie in tenure.* Sec. 25. Same— Hereditaments — Hereditaments is a term of still broader extent than either lands or tene- ments, and includes not only lands and tenements, but comprehends whatever passes, without testamentary dis- position, on the death of the owner, to the heirs by hered- itary succession,^ and embraces heirlooms as well as lands and tenements.® Land regarded as a hereditament stands in a peculiar position, because its existence is wholly independent of the manner in which estates in land are limited, while other hereditaments can only by a metaphor be said to have any existence apart from their limitation for estates of inheritance. The word here- ditament, when used in relation to land, sometimes de- notes the land itself as a physical object, and some- times the estate in the land. The use of a single name to denote two such disparate ideas is not with- out inconvenience ; but the practice is now inveter- ate. Thus, with some degree of confusion, it is com- monly said that land is both a tenement and an heredita- ment. Here it is evident that the word tenement is not used in exactly the same sense as when a legal estate for life is styled a tenement ; and the word hereditament is not used in exactly the same sense as when a rent-charge ia fee-simple is styled a hereditament. In the case of land, the estate contemplated is the legal fee-simple ; and since this exhausts the whole possible interest, by way of ' Sacket v. Wheaton, 34 Mass. (17 * See : Doe v. Dyball, 1 Moore & P. The Pick ) 103 ' ^^0. IB word " tenement " in a will 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19b, 20a ; has never been construed, in- 1 Prest Est 8. , ,„ ^ ^ dependent of otlier circuni- ^ Canfleld v. Ford, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) stances, to passing a fee. 336 ; Wrieht V. Page, 23 U. S. (10 2 Bl. Com. 17 ; Wheat ) 204; bk. 6 L. ed. 803. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 6a ; '2B1. Com. 17; ! I?^V4' ^ io -i« 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 6a. 1 Prest. Est- 12, 13. ' 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 401. • See : post, § 6o. 24 CLASSES OF HEEEDITAMENTS. [BOOK 1. estate, in the land, and since, for most purposes, it matters little whether we speak of the land itself, or of the ut- most possible interest in the land, some degree of obscur- ity is often permitted to exist as to which precisely of these two things is meant to be the subject of reference. The word has, to some extent, a double meaning. In other cases, in which the thing has no real existence apart from the estate in the thing, the words used have only a single meaning.^ Sec. 26. Same — Same — Division of hereditaments. — Hereditaments are commonly divided first into real, mixed, and personal hereditaments ; and second, into cor- poreal and incorporeal hereditaments. The phrase heredit- aments real, or real hereditaments, is commonly used to denote lands regarded as a physical object, and legal estates of inheritance in lands, whether in possession, remainder, or reversion. The phrase hereditaments mixed, or mixed hereditaments, includes all estates of in- heritance which savor of the realty. The phrase here- ditaments personal, or personal hereditaments, includes certain inheritable rights, either having no connection with lands, such as a personal annuity granted for an estate of inheritance,^ or having a connection which im- plies no participation either in lands or its profits ; also an- nuities grairt in fee,^ and certain annuities charged upon public revenues.* Corporeal hereditaments are fixed as to their definition by the legal maxim, that at common law they lie in livery, and not in grant. The phrase therefore includes only lands regarded as a physical object, and legal estates of inheritance in possession. The only conveyance in pais — that is, made between party and party, and not matter of record, as a fine or recovery, — by which these could at common law be con- veyed to a stranger, was a feoffment, and the essence of a feoffment is the livery of the seisin. All other here- ditaments, to which applies the description, tangi non possunt nee videri, are included under the term incor- ' Challis on Real Prop. 39. ■* Holdemesse v. Carmarthen, 1 Bro. 2 Turner v. Turner, Ambl. 776. C. C. 377. ' Stafford v. Buohley, 3 Ves. Sr. 171. Chap. I. § 26.] INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. 25 poreal hereditaments. These are said at common law to lie in grant ; because they would pass by the mere dehvery of a deed purporting to convey them, and the word grant was the most appropriate, though not the only, word of conveyance for the purpose. CHAPTEE II. WHAT IS REAL PROPERTY. Sec. 37. Generally. Sec. 28. Things real become personal by agreement. Sec. 29. Church-pews — Definition, Sec. 30. Same — Assignment of pews. Sec. 31. Same — Eights of pew-holders — English doctrine. Sec. 33, Same — Same — American doctrine. Sec. 33. Same — Same — Limitation and qualification of property in pew. Sec. 34. Same — Same — As to right of occupancy. Sec. 35. Same — Law regulating. Sec. 36. Same — Same — Episcopal church. Sec. 37. Same — Same — Same— Vestry's control. Sec. 38. Same — Same — Free church — Power of trustees. Sec. 39. Same — Grant in perpetuity. Sec. 40. Same — Interest of pew-holder in church edifice and lands. Sec. 41. Same — Restrictions on use and treatment of pew. Sec. 42. Same — Abandonment or sale of church edifice. Sec. 43. Same — Changes and repairs. Sec. 44. Burial lots. Sec. 45. Corporate stocks and lands. Sec. 46. Same — Realty held by corporation in trust when. Sec. 47. Same — Land is real estate when. Sec. 48. Same — Nature and object of investment. Sec. 49. Electric poles and wires realty. Sec. 50. Emblements — Growing crops. Skc. 51. Same — When crop severed. Sec. 52. Fee-farm lease. Sec. 53. Fructus industriales. Sec. 54. Same — Products of a mixed nature — Hops. ' Sec. 55. Fructus naturales. Sec. 56. Same — Growing trees. Sec. 57. Same — Same — Overhanging trees. Sec. 68. Same — Same — ''Line trees." Sec. 59. Same — Cut trees. Sec. 60. Ground-rent — Definition. Sec. 61. Same — Nature and methods of creation. Sec. 63. Same — Disposition of in case of intestacy. Sec. 63. Heirlooms — Definition. Sec. 64. Same — Not recognized in America. Chap. II. § 28.] THINGS WHICH ARE REAL PROPERTY. 27 Sec. 66. Houses and buildings. Sec. 66. Same— Built by tenant. Sec. 67. Same — Consent to erection. Sec. 68. Same — Chamber or floor in building. Sec. 69. Same— Same— Effect of destruction of building. Section 27. Generally — Land, -as we shall presently see/ is generally regarded as real property ; and so also is anything that is permanently affixed to it, either by the act of man or the process of nature, as well as many of the intangible rights which adhere to it and grow out of its possession. Thus all trees, herbage, buildings, fences, and other improvements or betterments ^ upon the surface, and all mines, quarries, metals, minerals, oils, or gases within the soil belong to and pass with the land.® Yet the soil may be owned by one man, and the fences and buildings by another ; and as between such owners, such structures will be regarded as personal property. But in their nature, fences and buildings, like every- thing else attached to the earth, are real estate, and pass with the soil to the heir or grantee. It is truly said that rails are not in their nature real property. But a fence, though constructed of rails, is in its nature real property. It is just as plainly so as is a house. Both are made of materials which were once personal property ; but they become realty when formed into a structure and attached to the soil. The word land includes not only the soil, tut everything attached to it, whether attached by the course of nature, as trees, herbage, and water^ or by the hand of man, as buildings and fences. This is but common learning ; and there is no more room for question that a grant of land, eo nomine, will carry buildings and fences, than there is that it will carry growing trees and herb- age upon, or mines and quarries in, the groimd beneath the surface.* Sec 28. Things real become personalty by agreement — . There are many things which belong to and pass with the soil, and are accounted as real property, which by special agreement may be made the subject of a distinct 1 See • Post § 79. ' Mott v. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564, 573. ^ See : Post, " Bettermente." " Mott v. Pabner, 1 N. Y. 564, 572-3. 28 THINGS REAL PROPERTY BY AGREEMENT. [Book I. ownership, and thereby become personal property ; and many other things which are commonly regarded as per- sonal property become a part of the realty on becoming attached or affixed to it, and pass with it to the heir, devisee, or grantee as fixtures and the like. And there are certain interests in and connected with land, known as chattels real, which do not attach to or pass with it on its devolution.^ Thus a lease for years, being less than a freehold estate in the land, is regarded as a chattel interest. The duration of the term, whether for a few years or for a great number of years, is immaterial,^ pro- vided only it be fixed and determined, and there be a reversion or remainder in fee in some other person ; ^ ex- cept in those states where long tenures are made inherit- able by statute.* Thus under the present Massachusetts statute so long as fifty years of a lease for a hundred years or more remain unexpired, it is regarded for many purposes as an estate in fee-simple.^ Under the New York Code of Civil Procedure,^ five years of an unex- pired lease is regarded as real property for many pur- poses.^ Sec. 29. Church-pews-Befinition — A pew is a seat in a church, separated from all the others, with a convenient place to stand or kneel therein.* Strictly speaking, a church-pew is a closed seat in a church," and the word is so used in England ; but in this country, a pew is gener- ' 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 343. might, perhaps, provide ex- " Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439, pressly for them ; but as they 445 ; are extremely rare, they seem Montague v. Smith, 13 ss. 396. to have been left on the footing 2 See : Hollenbeck v. McDonald, of all other chattels. 113 Mass. 347, 349; 1 1 Wood Conv. XX. Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439, See : Post, chapter XX. " Estate 445; for Years." Gray's Case, 5 Mass. 419 ; « Hollenbeck v. McDonald, 113 3 Bl. Com. 386 ; Mass. 347, 349. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 46a, 118a ; " N. Y.- Code Civ. Proc. § 1430 ■ 3 Kent Com. (13th ed,) 343. 1 Revised Stats. Codes and Laws, leases for long term of years, — It is 1077. said by the Supreme Judi- ' See : JEx parte Wilson, 7 Hill (N. cial Court of Massachusetts in Y.) 150. the case of Chapman v. Gray, « 3 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 413 15 Mass. 439, 445, that if long » Brumfltt v. Roberts, L. E. 5 C. P. terms for years were more fre- 334, 333. quent among us, the legislature Chap. II. § 30.] CHURCH PEWS. 29 ally understood to be a long low bench or slip, capable of seating several persons Sec. 30. Same — Assignment of pews — In England, be- fore the Eeformation, the body of the church was com- mon to all parishioners ; but after the Eeformation the practice arose of assigning particular seats or pews to individuals. This assignment of pews was made by the ordinary, by a faculty which was a mere license, and was personal to the licensee, and all disputes concerning it were determined in the spiritual courts.^ And while every parishioner has a right to a seat in the parish church, he cannot claim the right to have a particular pew assigned to his use.^ A right to a pew can exist only by a grant of an ordinary or a bishop, called a "faculty," or by prescription.^ At first the power of ordering the seats or pews in the church was discretion- ary and was vested by common law in the ordinary, but by custom it came to be exercised by the church wardens, who were the representatives of the ordinary in that respect, and whose assignment of seats was presumed to have been made with the approbation and consent of the ordinary.* As a consequence it has become the settled law of the English courts that church wardens have a discretionary power to appropriate the pev/s in the church, subject only to the control of the ordinary. ^ While it was formally held in England^ that a right to a pew may be acquired by prescription, it is thought that in this 1 State V. Trinity Church, 45 N. J. Griffin v. Dighton, 5 Best &. S. L (16 Vr.) 330 ; s.c. 38 Alb. L. 93 ; s.c. 117 Eng. C. L. 93; J xii. Morgan i;. Curtis, 3 Man. & R. 389; See • Presbyterian Church v. An- Jarratt v. Steele, 3 Phill. 167; druss 31 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 335, Pettman v. Bridger, 1 Phill. 316; 329 . ' 3 Bl.Com. 438, Hume's' Eccl. L. tit. " Churches," * 3 Bac. Abr. 343; c 27 • 1 Burns Eccl. L. 359; Hook's Church Diet. tit. " Pews." Church Warden, 3 ; ' State V. Trinity Church, 45 N. J. Woods Inst. 88-90. L (16 Vr ) 330; s.c. 38 Alb. L. ' See: State v. Trinity Church, 45 N. j'ill; ' J. L. (16 Vr.) 330; s.c. 38 Alb. Matter of Cathedral Church, 8 L. L. J. Ill; „ ,, ^ rp ggi Reynolds v. Monkton, 3 M. & 'See:' Cri^p v. Martin, L. R. 3 Pro. Rob. 384: , Div 15- s.c. 19 Moak's Eng. Matter of Cathedral Church, 8 L. Rep 553- T. 861. Brvan v Whistler, 8 Barn. & C. « See: Morgan v. Curtis, 3 Mees. & 388; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. 147; R. 389. 30 EIGHTS IN PEWS— ENGLISH DOCTRINE. [Book I. country an individual right to the occupation of a par- ticular pew will not arise from an occupation of it for ever so long a time,-^ unless it is annexed to a house, and it also be shown that the pew was repaired by the claim- ant, and those under whom he claims for the prescriptive period.^ Sec. 31. Same — Eights of pew-holders in pews— English doctrine — In England, the freehold to the church being in the parson for the time being, the right which the pew-holder has in his pew is merely an incorporeal in- terest, and is in the nature of an easement in the lands of another,^ entitling the party to a right to occupy the pew during divine services ; * but does not confer the right to be in the pew at all times, or at any other time than when the church is open for church purposes.^ Sec. 32. Same — Same — American doctrine In this country the title to pews in a church generally depend on the statutes enacted to regulate this kind of property. In some of the states church-pews are declared by statute to be an interest in real property,^ while in others they are declared to be an interest in personal property. In the absence of statutes regulating such property, the interest of a party in a ;^ew in a church, although a limited and qualified interest, is usually considered to be an interest in ' See: Boothby u. Baily, Hob. 69; Pettman v. Bridger 1 Phill. 316. Stocks V. Booth, 1 T. R. 428 ; s.c. See: Daniel v. "Wood, 18 Mass. (1 1 Rev. Rep. 344; Pick.) 102; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151; Wood's Inst. 90. Shaw v. Beveridge, 3 Hill (N Y.) » State V. Ti-inity Church, 45 N. J. 26, s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 616. L. (16 Yr.) 230; s.c. 28 Alb. L. •» 2 Add. Ecol. 419. J. 111. " Brumfltt V. Roberts, L. E. 5 C. P. See: Hook's Diet. tit. "Pews"; 232; Wood's Inst. 90. Mainwaring v, Giles, 5 Barn. & ' Brmnfitt v. Roberts, L. R. 5 C. Aid. 356; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 198; P. 233; Gully v. Bishop of Exeter, 4 Bing. Woolocombe 17. Ouldridge, 3 Add. 294; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 508; 1; Ridout V. Harris, 17 Up. Can. C. Mainwaring v. Giles, 5 Bam & P. 88. Aid. 356; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 198; « As in Massachusetts, outside of GuUyu. Bishop of Exeter, 4 Bing. the city of Boston, Jackson i\ 290, 294; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 508, Rounesville, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 510; 137; and in Vermont, O'Hear Reynolds v, Monkton, 3 M. & v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt. 593; Rob. 384; s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 653, 655. Chap. II. § 32.] RIGHTS IN PEW— AMERICAN DOCTRINE. 31 real property, ^ notwithstanding the ownership is simply that of an exclusive easement for special purposes, ^ being merely a right to occupy under certain restrictions. ^ They are regarded and treated as real property in all cases arising under the statute of frauds,* the statute of conveyances,^ or of descent and distributions," and a ' See: Succession of Gamble, 33 La. An. 9; Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 1; Jackson v. RounsevUle, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 127; Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 103; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151; Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435, 438; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159; Bates V. Sparrell, 10 Mass. 833; Presbyterian Church v. Andruss, 21 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 825; St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 84 Barb. (N. Y.) 16; Viele U.Osgood, 8 Barb.(N.Y.) 130; Shaw V. Beveridge, 3 Hill(N. Y.), 26; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 616; Trustees First Baptist Church of Ithaca V. Bigelow, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 28; Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249; Howe V. Stevens, 47 Vt. 363; O'Hear v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt. 593: s.c. 80 Am. Deo. 653, 655; Barnard v. Whipple, 29 Vt. 401; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 422; True V. Morrill, 28 Vt. 673; Hodges V. Green, 38 Vt. 358; KeUog V. Dickinson, 18 Vt. 366. Eight to nse church for purposes of worship — Interest inland. — In the case of Brumfield v. Car- son, 33Ind. 94; s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 184, it is said that the right to use a church edifice to worship in when unoccupied by the church to which it belongs, is an interest in real estate, and a contract therefor, to be valid under the statute of frauds, must be in writing, signed by the party to be charged. ' Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 103; Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 438; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159; Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249. ' Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 1, 21; Citing : lie New South Meeting- house, 95 Mass. (13 AUen) 497 502; Attorney-General v. Proprietors Meeting-house in Federal Street, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 1; Howard v. First Parish of North Bridgewater, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 138; V\''entworth v. First Parish of Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344; Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 103; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151; Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 434; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159. •> State V. Tiinity Church, 45 N. J. L. (16 Vr.) 230; s.c. 28 Alb. L. J. Ill; VoorheestJ. Presbyterian Church, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 103 ; aff'g 8 Id. 135; Viele V. Osgood, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 130; Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Ithaca v. Bigelow, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 38; Barnard v. Whipple, 39 Vt. 401 ; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 433. ' Sights in a pew can be transferred only in the manner provided for the transfer of real property-. Barnard v. Whipple, 29 Vt. 401; S.C. 70 Am. Deo. 433. See: Viele v. Osgood, Barb. (N. Y.) 130. « Bates V. Sparrell, 10 Mass. 838; First Baptist Church v. Bigelow, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 38; O'Hear v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt. 593; s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 653, 655; Barnard v. Whipple, 39 Vt. 401; s.c. 70 Am. Dee. 422. In the case of Freligh v. Piatt, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)494, the court say: '' A sale of real estate ex vi ter- mini means an absolute trans- fer of the property. But the sale of pews in a church is not a sale of real estate within the New York act i-egulating relig- ious societies. By the grant of a pew the grantee acquires a limited usufructuary right only. He must use it as a pew in a house of worship, but has not an unlimited, absolute right. 33 PEOPERTY IN PEW— LIMITATION. [Book I. devise of a testator's real estate carries with it his pew- rights.^ Sec. 33. Same — Same— Limitation and qualifleation of property in paw — While the pew-holder has an absolute and exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of his pew for the purposes of public worship as long as ■ the house remains, and may maintain an action against a trespasser, or any person who disturbs him in the pos- session or enjoyment thereof, or in any way infringes upon his rights thereto,^ yet this interest in the pew is separate from the fee,^ and is limited and qualified both as to the nature of the estate and the time and manner of enjoyment.* Sec. 34. Same — Same — As to right of occupancy. — The assigning or leasing of a pew does not confer upon the holder thereof the right to be in it at any other time than during public worship, or to occupy it for any other pur- He cannot use it lawfully for purposes incompatible with its nature. The right, too, is lim- ited as to time." Bates V. Sparrell, 10 Mass. 323; See: Succession of Gamble, 2D La. An. 9; Presbyterian Cliurcli v. Andruss, 21 N. J. L. (l.Zab.) 335; See: Gorton v. HadSeU, 03 Mass. (9 Gush.) 508; Jackson v. EounseviUe, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 137; Sargent v. Pierce, 43 Mass. (3 Met.) 80; Kimball v. Second Parish of Eow- ley, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 347; Howard v. First Parish of North Bridgewater, 34 Mass. (7 Pick.) 188; Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159; Fisher v. Glover, 4 N. H. 180; Woodworth v. Payne, 74 N. Y. 196; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 298; Wheaton v. Gates, 18 N. Y. 395; St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 16; Cooper V. Presbyterian Church, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 223; Abernethey v. Society of Puri- tans, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 1; Heeney v. St. Peter's Church, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 608; Shaw V. Beveridge, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 36; s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 610; Baptist Church v. Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 396, 303; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 323, Price V. Methodist Episcopal Church, 4 Ohio 515, 541; Howe V. Stevens, 47 Vt. 262; O'Hear v. De Goesbriand, 38 Vt. 593; s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 653; Perrin v. Granger, 33 Vt. 101; Kellog V. Dickinson, 18 \'t. 260; Pettman v. Bridger, 1 Phill. Eccl. 316. ' See Woodworth i\ Payne, 74 N. Y. 196, 200; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 398. 301; Shaw'v. Beveridge, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 26; s.c. 38 Am Dec. 610; Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Ithaca v. Bigelow, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 28; Justice MiLLBR says in Wood- worth V. Payne, supra, that pews may be leased and held distinct from the fee. "•See: Kimball v. First Parish of Eowley, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 347; Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 102; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151; Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435; s,6. 9 Am. Dec. 159. Chap. n. § 35.] RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY— LAW REGULATING. 33 poses than those of pubHc worship,^ and matters connected therewith. ^ Thus where the parish or society lends or liires the use of the meeting-house in which the pew is situated for purposes not connected with the public religious wor- ship of the society or congregation which owns the house, it is thought that the use of the house extends to the use of the pews also, to the exclusion of the holders thereof.^ In the case of Shaw v. Beveridge,* the court say that the owners of pews have an exclusive right to their pos- session and occupation for the purposes of public worship ; not as an easement, but by virtue of their individual right of property therein, derived, perhaps, in theory at least, from the corporation represented by the trustees who are seized and possessed of the temporalities of the church. The owners hold and possess their particular seats in severalty, in subordination to the more general right of the trustees in the soil and freehold. These rights are distinct and separate ; and neither do they, nor the respective possessions growing out of the enjoy- ment of them, necessarily conflict with each other. ^ Sec. 35. Same— Law-regulating — At common law unless the right to a pew was an easement proper, that is, was appurtenant to some dominant tenement or estate, it was of purely ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the remedies pertaining to it were of ecclesiastical cognizance.^ It is a well settled rule that courts of law will not interfere ' First Baptist, Society v. Grant, 59 his pew in preference to any Me. 245; one else. Presbyterian Churcli v. Andruss, See: Wall v. Lee, 34 N. Y. 141,149; 21 N J L (1 Zab.) 335; First Baptist Church of Hartford Erwin v. Hurd, 13 Abb. (N. Y.) v. Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. N. C. 91; Y.)296. Craig V First Presbyterian ^ See: Jackson v. RounseviUo, 46 Church, 88 Pa. St. 43, 51; s.c. Mass. (5 Met.) 137, 102. 32 Am. Rep. 417; " 3 Hill (N. Y.), 26; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. Jones V. Towne, 47 Vt. 263; 616. , c, ■ . . Brumfltt V. Roberts, L. R. 5 C. = Second Congregational Society of p 232- North Bridgewater v. Waring, See! Pok, % 39. 41 Mass. (34 Pick.) 304. ' Meetings for temporal purposes " Mainwaring v. Giles, tiarn Is. —such as meetings of the so- Aid. 356; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 198; ciety or congregation, held for Spooner v. Brewster^3 Bmg. 136; temporal purposes, at which s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 75; times it is thought the pew- Rogers «. Brooks IT. R.4ol; holder has a right to occupy Stocks v. Booth, 1 T. R. 438; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 244. Sj. CONTROL OF PEWS. [Book I. with the rules of a voluntary religious society, adopted ■for the regulation of its own affairs, unless to protect some civil right which is infringed by their operation.^ It is said in the case of the Baptist Church v. Witherell,^ that over the church, as such, the legal tribunals do not profess to have any jurisdiction whatever, except to pro- tect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the peace. All questions relating to the faith and practice of the church, and its members, belong to the church judica- tories to which they have voluntarily subjected them- selves. It follows that, where property and other sub- stantial rights are not involved, the decisions of ecclesias- tical courts are final, as they are the best judges of what constitutes an offense against the word of God and the discipline of the church.^ Sec. 36. Same— Same — Episcopal church The English ecclesiastical law forms the basis of the law regulating the affairs of the Episcopal church in this country, and is in force, except as modified by statute and the usages and canons of the church.* Sec. 37. Same— Same— Vestry's control — The vestry of an Episcopal church may control the occupancy of a pew, and where the right to occupy has been given by them, it is not alienable or transmissible, and where the pew is rented annually, the one renting it has at most only a I Chase v. Cheney, 58 111. 509; s.c. Forbes v. Eden, L E 1 Sc J 11 Am. Eep. 95; 10 Am. Leg. App. 568. Reg. 295; = 3 p^jge ch. (N. Y.) 296 ; s.c. 24 State V. Trinity Chm-ch, 45. N. J. Am. Deo. 223 L. (16 Vr.) 230; s.c. 28 Alb. L. See : Robertson v. BuUion 9 J- 111; Barb. (N. Y.) 64 ; S?e: People ex rel. Dilcher v. The DifEendorf v. Reformed Cal German United Evangelical Church, 20 John (N Y ) 12 • Church, 53 N. Y. 103; Lawyer v. Cipperly, 7 PaiRe Ch Petty V. Tooker, 21 N. Y. 267; (N. Y.) 281 ; Robertson v. BuUion, 9 Barb. » German Reformed Church v Sei- (N. Y.) 64; bert, 3 Pa. St. 291. Gable v. -Miller, 10 Paige Ch. (N. See : Shannon v. Frost 3 B Y.) 627; S.C. 2 Den. (N. Y.) 492; Mon. (Ky.) 250, 258. Baptist Church of Hartford v. * State v. Trinity Church 45 N J Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) L. (16 Vr.) 230 ; s.c. 28 Alb' l' 296 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 223 ; J. Ill ; Sutter V. First Dutch Reformed Lynd v. ' Menzies 33 N J L ('l Church, 42 Pa. St. 503 ; Vr.) 162 ; ' ' • • V German Reformed Church v. Sei- Hoffman's Law of the Church 14 bert, 3 Pa. St. 283 ; 30, 34, 64. '-"uicn, it, Chap. H. § 39.] GRANTING PEWS IN PERPETUITY. 35 leasehold interest for the term. The civil court will not review the action of vestrymen in excluding a member of a church from a particular pew : and this is true al- though they give no reason for their action, and do not give the complaining party a hearing.^ Sec 38. Same— Same— Free church — It has been said that in a free church where no charge is made for the sittings, the trustees have power to determine where at- tendants at worship shall sit, and may by force remove one who persists in sitting in a place other than that as- signed to him.2 But such trustees have not authority to distribute the property of the society among the indi- vidual members or any class of them ; nor can such right be conferred by the vote of a majority of the members of the society and the order of a court. ^ Sec. 39. Same— Granting in perpetuity — The grant of a pew in a church edifice in perpetuity does not give to the pew-holder an absolute right of property, as in a grant of land in fee-simple, but a limited usufructuary interest raerely,* being simply a right to occupy,'' under certain ' State V. Trinity Church, 45 N. J. Fi-eUgh v. Piatt, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) L. (16 Vr.) 230 ; s.c. 28 Alb. L. 494 ; J 111. Heeney v. St. Peter's Church, 2 = Sheldon u.Vail, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 354. Edw.' Ch. (N. Y.) 608 ; " Wheaton v. Gates, 18 N. Y. 395. White v. Trustees Methodist Epis- See : Madison Avenue Baptist copal Church, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) Church V. Baptist Church on 477, 481 ; Oliver St , 4 N. Y. 131, 140. First Baptist Church v. WithereU, .378 ; Austin V. Sawyei^ ft-Caw. (N. Y.) 39. ' Tripp V. Hasceig, 20 Mich. 254, 261 ; s.c. 4 Am. Rep. 388 ; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503, s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393. ' Baker v. Jordan, 3 Ohio St. 438, followed in Youmans v. Caldwell, 4 Ohio St. 72,78; Jones V. Timmons, 21 Ohio St. 596, 604. * Backenstoss v. Staliler's Admr., 33 Pa. St. 251 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 593; Lauchner v. Rex, 20 Pa. St. 464 ; Bear v. Bitzer, 16 Pa. St. 175 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 490 ; Smith V. Jolmston, 1 Penn. & W. (Pa.) 471 ; Wilkins v. Varshbinder, 7 Watts (Pa.) 378. ' See : Cases cited in last two foot- notes. ' Backenstoss v. Stahler's Admr., 33 Pa. St. 231 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 593. Evans v. Roberts, 5 Barn. 829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. Citing : & C. 700; Dunne ». Ferguson, Hayes (Ir. Exch.) 540 ; Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. & W. 343. ' Pitts V. Hendrix, 6 Ga. 453 ; Porche v. Bodin, 28 La. An. 761 ; Hershey v. Metzgar, 90 Pa. St. 217 ; s.c. 9 Reporter, 384 ; Bittenger v. Baker, 29 Pa. St. 66 ; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 154 ; Bear v. Bitzes, 16 Pa. St. 175. Sale on execution or in partition, ' — In Ohio the crops do not pass to the purchaser under a sale on execution or in partition. See : Albin v. Riegel, 40 Ohio St. 339; Houts V. Showalter, 10 Ohio St. 125; Cassily v. Rhodes, 13 Ohio, 88. ' Jones V. Thomas, 8 Blackf . (Ind.) 428; ' Chap. H. § 51.] RULE WHEN CROP SEVERED. 47 Sec. 51. Same — When crop severed. — A different rule prevails where the crop has been severed.^ Thus in the case of Dixon v. Niccolls,^ M^here land had been rented on the shares, and the grain had been severed from the realty, but remained stacked thereon, and undivided, it was held not to pass to the purchaser, by a deed to the land, without reservation or exception'; and it is said, in a recent case in Pennsylvania,^ that where there has been a severance of the growing grain, it does not pass to him who purchases the land subsequent to its severance.* And growing crops are a part of the realty as between the successful plaintiff in an action of ejectment and the evicted defendant,'' where the crops were planted after the commencement of the action in ejectment.^ But the rule is otherwise where the grain was sown and har- vested by one on lands to which he claimed title, and of which he was in actual possession.'^ Crops planted by a tenant who holds under the owner of the soil are, as be- tween the landlord and his tenant, personal property, and the tenant has the right to remove them ; ^ they be- Ledyard v. Phillips, 47 Mioli. 305 ; * See : Stambaugh v. Yeats, 3 s.o. 11 N. W. Rep. 170 ; Rawle (Pa.) 161 ; Rusgles V. First Nat. Bk. of Gen- Myers v. White, 1 Rawle (Pa.) terville, 43 Mich. 193 ; s.c. 5 N. 353. W. Rep. 257 ; ° See : Altes v. Hinckler, 36 111. 375 ; Howell V. Schenck, 24 N. J. L. s.c. 85 Am. Dec. 407; (4 Zab.) 89 ; Crotty v. CoUins, 13 111. 567 ; Aldrioh v. Reynolds, 1 Barb. Ch. Strode v. Swim, 1 A. K. Marsh. (N. Y.) 613 ; (Ky.) 366 ; Gardener v. Finley, 19 Barb. (N. Brothers v. Hurdle, 10 Ired. (N. Y.) 317, 320 ; C.) L. 490 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec. Jewett V. Keenholts, 16 Barb. 400 ; (NY) 193 ■ Doe ex d. Upton v. Witherwick, Gillett V. Balcom, Barb. (N. Y.) 3 Bing. 11 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 370 • 1^- Simers k Saltiiff, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 'McLean v. Bovee, 34 Wis. 29&; 2J4. . s.c. 1 Am. Rep. 185. Shemrd v. Philbrick, 3 Den. (N. ' Martin v. Thompson, 63 Cal. 618 ; Y^\l^ • S'C- 45 Am. Rep. 663 ; Lane v King, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) Page v. Fowler, 39 Cal. 413 ; s.c. 584 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 105 ; 3 Am. Rep. 463 ; Crews V. Pendleton, 1 Leigh (Va.) Stockwell v. Phelps, 34 N. \. 397 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 750. 363 ; s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 710 See • Wiltsie on Mort. Forec. " Wintermute v. Light, 46 Barb. 706-708 (N. Y.) 378 ; 1 Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch. Pfanner u Stomer, 40 How. (Md.) 284 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. N. Y.) Pr. 401 ; kog '' ' Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. » 39 m 372 ; S.C. 89 Am. Dec. 313. (N. Y.) 108 113 ; .Hershey i. Metzgar, 90 Pa. St. Hunt ^- Watkms, 1 Humph. 317 ; S.C. 9 Reporter, 384. (Tenn.) 498. 43 FEE-FARM LEASE. [Book I. come part of the realty, however, should the tenant vol- untarily abandon or forfeit possession of the premises.^ Sec. 52. Fee-farm lease — A fee-farm lease is the grant- ing of lands in fee, reserving rent, and is only letting lands to farm in fee-simple instead of the usual modes for life or for years.^ A farm- fee rent is a rent-charge issuing out of such an estate in fee, and is a perpetual rent, reserved on a conveyance in fee-simple. Fee-farms are lands held in fee, to render for them annually the true value, or more or less, and is called a fee-farm, be- cause a farm-rent is reserved, upon a grant in fee.^ It is expressly said in the statute Quia Emptores, that it ex- tends only to lands held in fee-simple,* but Sir Edward Coke declares that it extends to lands that are held in fee-farm.^ A fee-farm lease creates an estate of in- heritance in the grantee, his heirs and assigns. It is in fact a fee-simple estate, subject only to the payment of the rents reserved, and the performance of the lawful conditions contained in the instrument creating the estate.^ Sec. 53. Pruetus industriales — A distinction is to be ob- served, between fructus natui-ales, or the natural growths of the soil, such as trees, grasses, herbs, fruit on trees, and the like, which at common law are part of the soil, and fructus industriales, or fruits or products the result of the annua] labor of man in sowing and reaping, plant- ing and gathering," which, though strictly a part of the Compare : Ladd v. Abel, 18 Conn. Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 Bam. & 513 ; Aid. 470 ; Graves v. "Weld, 5 Barn. & Adol. Orlando's Case, 5 Co. lj.6a. 105 ; s.o. 37 Eng. C. L. 53. 2 Dg Peyster v. Michael, 6- N. Y. ' Chandler v. Thurston, 27 Mass. 467 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470 ; (10 Pick.) 205, 210 ; 2 Bl. Com. 43. Debow V. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. ^ 3 ingt. 44. (5 Halst.) 128 ; ^ 1 Evan's Stats. 195. Pfanner v. Stunner, 40 Hovsr. ' See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N (N. Y.) Pr. 401 ; Y. 467, 497 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. 470. (N. Y.) 108 ; « Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.) Whipple V. Foote, 2 John. (N. Y.) L. 265 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738 ; 418, 421n ; s.o. 3 Am. Dec. 442 ; Flynt v. Conrad, 1 Phil. (N C ) Gee V. Young, lHayw.(N.C.) 17; L. l^O, 193; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. Hawkins v. Skegg, 10 Humph. 588. (Tenn.) 81; Chap. II. § 53.] FEUCTUS INDUSTEIALES. 4:9 realty as much as those products which the soil brings forth without man's intervention, are treated as per- sonal property for many purposes.^ Crops, when planted by the owner of the soil, constitute, in general, part of the realty, and will pass to the vendee by a conj veyance of the land ; ^ but the owner of the soil may sell a crop to be cut without conveying any interest in the land, and the purchaser will acquire title to it as a chat- tel, even though not fit for harvesting at the time of the sale.^ Such crops as are planted by the owner of the soil, if mature and to be gathered immediately, may not only be sold by him,* but they may be taken on execu- tion,^ as personal property, where they can be readily ^ See : Preston v. Eyan, 45 Mich. 147 ; s.c. 7 N. W. Eep. 819 ; Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.) L. 265 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738. "See: Ante, %50. ' Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 24, 27 ; s.c. 10 Am. Eep. 318, 320 ; See : Craddock v. Eiddlesbarger, 3 Dana (Ky.), 206 ; Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 39, 42, 43 ; Newcomb v. Earner, 2 John. (N. Y.) 421, note a ; Jones V. FUnt, 10 Ad. & E. 753 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ; Evans v. Eoberts, 5 Bam. & C. 829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. & W. 343. ■* McKenzie v. Lampley, 31 Ala. 526; Crine v. Tifts, 65 Ga. 644 ; Northern v. State, 1 Ind. 113 ; Craddock v. Eiddlesbarger, 2 Dana (Ky.) 205 ; Parham v. Thompson, 3 J. Marsh. (Ky.) 159 ; Thompson v. Craigmyle, 4 Mon. (Ky.) 391 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 240. Pickens v. Webster, 31 La. An. 870; Porche v. Bodin, 38 La. An. 761 ; Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.)313 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 236 ; Cheshire Nat. Bk. v. Jewett, 119 Mass. 341, 344 ; MuUigan v. Newton, 83 Mass. (16 Gray) 311 ; Heard v. Fairbanks, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) Ill ; S.C. 38 Am. Dec. 394; 4 . J. B. Penhollow v. Dwight, 7 Mass. 74; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 21 ; Preston v. Eyan, 45 Mich. 174; s.c. 7 N. W. Eep. 819 ; Gillitt V. Truax, 37 Minn. 528 ; s.c. 8 N. W. Eep. 767 ; Bloom V. Welsh, 37 N. J. L. (3 Dutch.) 177 ; Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 81 ; Shepard v. PhUbrick, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 174 ; Hartweir v. Bissell, 17 John. (N. Y.) 128 ; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N. Y.) 108. Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.) 418 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 443 ; Smith V. Ti-itt, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) L. 341; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 565 ; Cassily v. Ehodes, 12 Ohio 88 ; Peacock v. Purvis, 2 Brod. & B. 362; Storer v. Hunter, 3 Barn. & C. 368; B.C. 10 Eng. C. L. 172; Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368 ; Scorell V. Boxall, 1 You. & J. 398. Compare : Norris v. Watson, 22 N. H. 364; s.c. 55 Am. Dec.160. * Green V. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550, 556. See : Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.I 39 ; Newcomb v. Eeimer, 3 John. (N. Y.) 421n. ; Mumford v. Whitnev, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 387 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 60; Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & E. 753 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 397 ; Graves v. Weld, 5 Barn. & Ad. 105 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 53 : 50 CROPS PRODUCED BY LABOR. [Book I. severed, like wheat or corn, or dug like potatoes or tur- nips, or pulled like beets or onions ; ^ because, at common law, a growing crop, produced by the expense and labor of the occupier of the land, was, as the representative of that labor and expense, considered as an independent chattel, ^ Evans v. Roberts, 5 Barn. & C. 829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Parker v. Staniland, 11 East 362 ; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 521 ; Warwick v. Bruce, 2 Maule & S. 205; Stainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. & W. 343 ; Carrington v. Roots, 2 Mees. & W. 348. ' Dunne v. Ferguson, Hayes (Ir. Exch.) 543 ; Warwick v. Bruce, 3 Maule & S. 305. Saiasbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. & W. 343 ; As to what constitutes a valid levy, there is a variety of opinion amongst the decided cases. InWhipplew. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.) 418 ; B.C. 3 Am. Dec. 442, it is said that to make a valid levy of an execution on growing crops, it is not necessary tliat a manual possession . should be taken ; that it is sufficient merely to declare that the sub- jects is levied on under execu- tion. In State v. Poor, 4 Dev. & B. (N. C.) L. 384; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 387, it is said that a levy upon a growing crop is insuf- ficient, unless the officer take open and notorious possession by entering the premises, and pubUcly announcing the seiz- ure to answer the writ. To the same effect is Trivillo v. Tilford, 6 Watts (Pa.) 468 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 484. See : Dorrance's Adrar. v. Com- monwealth, 13 Pa. St. 164 ; L,oury v. Coiilter, 9 Pa. St. 349,353. In Beekmanu. Lansing, B Wend. (N. Y.) 416 ; s c. 30 Am. Dec. 707, it is said that to constitute a valid levy, the officer must enter upon the premises where the crops or goods are and take actual possession of them, if it can be done ; they must be brought within his view and iiiade subject to his control ; and this doctrine is approved in Roth V. WeUs, 39 N. Y. 485 ; Rodgers v. Bonner, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 9, 24 ; Camp V. Chamberlain, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 203 ; Green v. Burke, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 490, 493 ; V/estervelt'u. Pinckney, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 123 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 516. See : Commonwealth v. Strem- back, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 341 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 351. It seems that the officer should assert his title, by virtue of the writ, by acts which, were it not for the ' execution, would make him a trespasser. Westervelt v. Pinckney,14 Wend. (N. Y.) 133,; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 516. See : Roth v. Wells, 39 N. Y. 485 ; Camp V. Chamberlain, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 198, 203 ; Green v. Burke, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 497; Beekman v. Lansing, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 446 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 707. ' Graff V. Fitoh, 56 lU. 373 ; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 85 ; Matlock V. Fry, 15 Ind. 483 ; Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 2 Dana (Ky.) 305 ; Burner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 212 ; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591; Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 81 ; Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 34 ; s.c. 10 Am. Rep. 318 ; Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.) 418 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 443 ; Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 39; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 387 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 60; Pourrier v. Raymond, 1 Haim. (N. B.) 530 ; Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & E. 758 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ; Evans v. Roberts, 5 Bam. & C. 839 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Poulter V. KiHingbeck, 1 Bos. & P. 397 ; Chap. II. § 53.] IMMATtTBE. AND GEOWING CROPS. 51 and the purchaser has a lawful right of entry, egress and regress, for the purpose of removal.-' It has been said that the fact that the crop is imma- ture and growing will not invalidate the sale,^ because all crops of grain or vegetables, the annual product of human labor and the cultivation of the soil, are per- sonal property and subject to be sold as such before maturity, no matter how long they are to remain in the soil in order to complete their growth.^ The reason for Parker v. Stamland, 11 East 362; B.C. 10 Rev. Rep. 521 ; Dunne v. Ferguson, Hayes (Ir. Exch.) 542 ; "Warwick v. Bruce, 2 Maule & S. ; 205; Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. & W. 343; Another lino of English cases deny that crops are personal prop- erty, and maintain that they can be transferred as real estate only. See: Earl of Falmouth v. Tliomas, 1 Cromp. & M. 89 ; Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 88. • Thompson v. Craigmyle, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 391 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 240; Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.) L. 265 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738. See : Coombs u Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch. (Md.) 284 ; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 236; Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 39 * Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N. y.) 108 ; Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.) 418 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 442 ; Cheshire Bank v. Jewett, 119 Mass. 224 ; PenhaUow v. Dwight, 7 Mass. 34 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 21 ; Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 100 ; Walton V. Jordan, 65 N. C. 172 ; Lewis V. McNatt, 65 N. C. 65 ; Smith V. Tritt, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) L. 241 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 565 ; Robinson v. Gee, 4 Ired. (N. C.) L. 186, 101 ; * Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 3 Dana (Ky.) 200 ; Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 42 • Jones V. FUnt, 10 Ad. & E. 753 ; B.C. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ; Carriugtonw. Roots, 3 Mees. & W. 248. Compare: Emmerson v. Heelis, 3 Taunt. 38. ' DsTis V. McFarlane, 37 Cal. 634 ; Marshall v. Ferguson, 23 Cal. 65 ; Bostwick V: Leach, 3 Day (Conn.) 476; Ticknor v. McClelland, 84 III. 471; Thompson v. Wilhte, 81 111. 356 ; Graff V. Fitch, 58 III. 373, 377 ; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 85 ; Bull V. Griswold, 19 111. 631 ; MUler V. State, 39 Ind. 267 ; Sherry v. Kcken, 10 Ind. 375 ; Bowman v. Conn, 8 Ind. 58 ; Brioker v. Hughes, 4 Ind. 146 ; Northern v. State, 1 Ind. 113 ; Moreland v. Myall, 14 Bush (Ky.) 474; Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 3 Dana (Ky.) 205 ; Robbins v. Oldham, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 38; Bryant v. Crosby, 40 Me. 9, 23 ; Cutler V. Pope, 13 Me. 377 ; Saflford v. Annis, 7 Me. 168 ; Purner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 213 ; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591 ; Smith V. Bryan, 5 Md. 141 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 104 ; Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546 ; s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 53; Ross V. Welch, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 235; Brown v. Sanborn, 21 Minn. 402 • Howe V. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 204; Pitkin V. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294 ; s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 218 ; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 173 ; Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 81 ; Bloom V. Welsh, 27 N. J. L. (3 Dutch.) 177 ; Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano Fertilizer Co., 82 N. Y. 476,484; 0-2 CROPS OF A MIXED NATUEE. [Boos h this is that growing crops being personal property so fa^ as to be capable of severance and sale by oral contract, an agreement for their sale is not an agreement for the sale of an interest in land.^ Sec. 54. Same — Products of a mixed nature — Hops. — There are some products of the earth which partake both of the nature of fructus industriales and fructus naturales. In such a case the true test has been said to be whether the crop is produced chiefly by the manur- ance and industry of man. Thus the fact that a crop is produced from perennial roots is not conclusive evidence that it is to be ranked as a fructus naturales, and as such to pass with the soil. Hop-roots are perennial,^ and doubtless as much a part of the soil as the forest Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180 ; s.c. 36 Am. Rep. 567, aflfii-mmg 6Hun(N. Y.)563; Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 34 ; s.c. 10 Am. Rep. 318 ; Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 39; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550, 554 ; Hartwell v. Bissell, 17 John. (N. Y.) 138 ; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N.Y.) 108 ; Frear v. Hardenberg, 5 John. (N. Y.) 373 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 356; Newcomb v. Ramer, 3 John. (N. Y.)431, note a; Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.) 418 ; S.C. 3 Am. Dec. 443 ; Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.) L. 265 ; Hershey v. Metzgar, 90 Pa. St. 317; Baokenstoss v. Stahler's Admr., 33 Pa. St. 361, 354 ; s.c. 75 Am. Deo. 592 ; Wilkins v. Vashbinder, 7 Watts (Pa.) 379 : Bellows V. Wells, 36 Vt. 509 ; Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & El. 753 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ; Evans v. Roberts, 5 Bam. & C. 829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. & W. 343 ; Dunne v. Ferguson, 1 Hayes (T Exch.) 540. ' See : Marshall /y. Ferguson, 33 Cal. 65, 69 ; Bostwick V. Leach, 3 Day (Conn.) 476; Reed v. Johnson, 14 III. 357 ; Sherry v. Picken, 10 Ind. 375 ; Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 2 Dana (Ky.) 304 ; Parham v. Thompson, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 159 ; Saflford v. Annis, 7 Me. (7Greenl.) 168; Pumer v. Piercy, 40 Md. 313 ; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591 ; Smith V. Bryan, 5 Md. 141 ; s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 104 ; Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 81 ; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550 ; Smith V. Tritt, 1 Dev. &B. (N. C.) L. 241 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 564 ; Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.) L. 365 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738 ; Backenstoss v. Stahler's Admr., 33 Pa. St. 351 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 593; Bear v. Bitzer, 16 Pa. St. 178 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 490 ; Wilkins v. Vashbinder, 7 Watts (Pa.) 378 ; Evans v. Roberts, 5 Bam. & C. 839 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. & W. 343 ; Eaton V. Southby, Willes, 131 ; Scorell V. Boxall, 1 You. & J. 396. See: Bishop i;.Bishop, 11 N.Y. 12a Chap. II. § 55.] FRUCTUS NATUEALES. 63 trees, but the crop of hops grown from these roots de- pends entirely upon the manurance and industry of man for its value, and for that reason is classed as fructus industridles, and is personal property.^ Sec. 55. Pruetus naturales.— The natural product of the soil without man's intervention, such as trees before being felled and converted into timber,^ and fruit before it is gathered,^ were at common law regarded as much a part of the soil as the earth from which they sprung.* Yet they may in a measure be dealt with and treated by' the owner as chattels, the same as fructus industriales, and may be sold as such where the intention of the parties contemplates that they shall be severed and removed immediately, or within a reasonable time ; but should the sale contemplate their being left to grow or obtain additional strength and increase from the earth, it will be regarded as a sale of an interest in the realty,^ and for that reason is within the statute of > Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N. Y.) 108 ; Graves v. Weld, 5 Barn. & Ad. 105 ; S.C. 3 Nev. & M. 725 ; 27 Eng. C. L. 53 ; Evans v. Roberts, 5 Barn. & Ores. 839 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Latham v. Atwood, Cro. Car. 515; Anonymous Case, Freem. Ch. 210; Fisher v. Forbes, 9 Vin. Abr. 373, pi. 82 ; 2 Bl. Com. 122 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 55a, 55b. ' See : United States v. Sohuler, 6 McL. C. C. 87. ' Blackberries finictns naturales.— In Sparrow v. Pond, 49 Minn. 413 ; s.c. 53 N. W. Rep. 36, in an opin- ion going over the ancient learn- ing on the subject, it is held that blackberries, while growing on the bushes, are not subject to a levy under an execution as personal property. They are not fructus industriales, like grain, but are fructus natur- ales, like natural bushes and grasses, and are regarded as a part of the realty. * See : Adams u Smith, Breese (111.) 321; Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 523 ; Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c. 25 Am. Dec. 470 ; Slocum V. Seymour, 36 N. J. L. (7 Vr,) 138 ; Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 543 ; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550, 556 ; Teal V. Auty, 3 Brod. & B. 99 ; Crosby v. Wads worth, 6 East 603 ; s.c. 3 Smith, 599 ; 8 Rev. Rep. 566 ; Rodwell V. Phillips, 9 Mees. & W. 501. 5 See : White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375 * Harreil v. MiUer, 35 Miss. 700 ; Howe V. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 304; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 173 ; Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 532 ; Slocum V. Seymour, 36 N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 138 ; Vorebeck v. Rowe, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 303 ; Warren v. Leland, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 613 ; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550 ; Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St 394 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 637 ; 54 GROWmG TREES— REALTY. [Book I. frauds, and should be in writing.^ This rule has been ap- plied in the sale of shrubs and nursery trees, ^ in the sale of growing trees, ^ in the sale of grass in the meadow ready to be cut,* and in the sale of an apple and peach crop/ Sec. 56. Same — Growing trees.— Growing trees are re- garded as a part of the land from which they spring,® and as such are real property. '^ Being an interest in land,^ as long as they are not actually, or in contempla- tion of law, severed from the soil, they are within the statute of frauds, and the property in them cannot be transferred by parol;* but when once they are severed, Huff V. MoCauley, 53 Pa. St. 306 ; Buck V. Pickwell, 27 Vt. 157 ; lillie V. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 198; s.c. 22 N. W. Rep. 467 ; Daniels v. Bailey, 48 Wis. 566 ; Summers v. Cook, 28 Grant (Ont.) 179; Macdonnell v. McKay, 15 Grant (Ont.) 391. » Putney v. Day, 6 If. H. 480 ; s.c. 25 Am. Dec. 470 ; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y ") 550 556 ■ Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 523 ; Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & E. 753 ; s.c. 87 Eng. O. L. 397 ; Teal V. Auty, 3 Brod. & B. 99 ; Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East 603'; s.c. 3 Smith, 599 ; 8 Rev. Rep. 566 ; Rodwell V. Phillips, 9 Mees. & W. 501. ' See : Whitmarsh v. Walker, 42 Mass. (1 Met.) 313. ' Byassee v. Reese, 4 Met. (Ky.) 872 ; s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 481 ; Cutler V. Pope, 13 Me. 377 ; Erskine v. Plummer, 7 Me. (7 Greenl.) 447 ; Purner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 213 ; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591 ; Nettleton v. Sikes, 49 Mass. (8 Met.) 84 ; Claflin V. Carpenter, 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 580 ; s.c. 8S Am. Dec. 381 ; Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 470 ; KOlmore v. Hewlett, 48 N. Y. 569; Bovce V. Washburn, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 792 ; SterUng v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 306. * See : Banton ■;;. Shorey, 77 Me. 48. " Cain V. McGuire, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 340; Brown v. Stanclift, 80 N. Y. 637 ; s.c. 20 Alb. L. J. 55. See : Purner v. Pierce, 40 Md. 213 ; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591. « Baker v. Lewis, 38 Pa. St. 301 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 698. ' Vorebeck v. Roe, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 302 ; Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 543 ; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550 : Hutchins v. King, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 58 ; bk. 17 L. cd. 544 ; Jones V. Fhnt, 10 Ad. & B. 753 ; s.c. 87 Eng. C. L. 397. 8 Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. 809 ; Wright V. Barrett;, ,30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 44 ; Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 613. 'McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114; Warren v. Leland, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 613. Compare : Claflin v. Carpenter, 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 580 ; Olmstead v. Niles, 7N. H. 532 ; Smith V. Surman, 9 Barn. & C. 561 ; s.c. 17 Eng. C. L. 253. A parol contract conveys no interest in growing timber. — The New Brunswick Land Company v. Kirk, 1 Allen (N. B.) 443. Kennedy v. Robinson, 3 Cr. & Dix. 118 ; Kerr v. Connell, Bert. (N. B.) 183 ; Murray v. Gilbert, 1 Hannay (N. B.) 553 ; ^ Segee v. Perley, 1 Kerr (N. B.) 439. ^ Chap. n. § 56.] SALE OF TREES— FELLED TREES. 55 either in fact or in contemplation of law, they become personal property.^ The sale of growing trees, with the right at a future time — whether that time is fixed or in- definite — to enter upon the land and cut and remove them, conveys an interest in the land ; ^ but when the in- tention is to transfer the title of the trees after they shall have been felled, or separated from the realty, this is held to be an executory contract for the sale of personal property,^ and vests the title to the trees in the vendee ' Claflin V. Carpenter, 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 580 ; Smith V. Surman, 9 Bam. & C. 561 ; s.c. 17 Eng. C. L. 353 ; Stukely v. Butler, Hob. 173. See : Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 522 • Marshall v. Green, L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 35 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng. Rep. 218 ; Lilford's Case, 11 Co. 50. « Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss. 700 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 154; Howe V. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 304; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H. 313; Ockington v. Richey, 41 N. H. 275 ■ Ohnstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 522 ; Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c. 25 Am. Dec. 470 ; Hendrickson v. Ivins, 1 N. J. Eq. (1 Saxt.) 562 ; Slooum V. Seymour, 36 N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 138 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 433; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114; Vorebeck r. Roe, 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 303; SUvemail v. Cole, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 685 ; Dubois V. KeUy, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 496; Pierrepont v. Barnard, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 364 ; Warren v. Leland, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 614 ; Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 543 ; Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 550 ; Lawrence v. Smith, 37 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 337 ; Boyce v. Washburn, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 792 ; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 380 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 60; Harrell v. MUler, 35 Miss. 700 ; Bowers v. Bowers, 95 Pa. St. 477; Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 394 ■ Huff V. McCauley, 53 Pa. St. 306 ; s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 303 ; Yeakle v. Jacob, 33 Pa. St. 376 ; Buck V. Pickwell, 87 Vt. 157 ; Hutchins v. King, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 53 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 544. ' Bostwiok V. Leach, 3 Day (Conn.) 476, 481 ; Armstrong v. Lawson, 73 Ind. 498; Owens V. Lewis, 40 Ind. 488 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 295 ; Byassee i\ Reese, 4 Met. (Ky.) 373 ; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 481 ; Cain V. McGuire, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 340; Edwards v. Grand Trunk R. Co. , 54 Me. 105 ; Cutler V. Pope, 13 Me. 377 ; Erskine v. Plummer, 7 Me. (7 Greenl.) 447 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 316; Pumer v. Piercy, 40 Md. 312 ;: s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591 ; Smith V. Bryan, 5 Md. 141 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 104 ; White V. Foster, 102 Mass. 375 ;: Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546 ; s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 52; Drake v. Wells, 93 Mass. (11 Al- len) 141 ; Parsons v. Smith, 87 Mass. (5 A1-- len) 578 ; Giles t7.Simonds,81 Mass.(15 Gray).' 441 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 373 ; Douglas V. Shumway, 79 Mass. (13 Gray) 498 : Nettleton v. Sikes, 49 Mass.. (8^ Met.) 34 ; Claflin V. Carpenter, 45 Mass. (4' Met.) 580; s.c. 38 Am. Deo. 381; 6G OVERHANGING TREES— PROPERTY IN. [Book I. absolutely.^ It has been said that the grant by the owner of land of all the timber standing and growing thereon to another and his heirs and assigns forever, with per- mission freely to enter, cut and carry them away at pleasure, conveys an estate of inheritance in the trees, with the right in the soil necessary for their support and growth, while the fee in the soil itself remains in the grantor.^ Sec. 57. Same — Same — Overhanging trees. — Where the trunk of a tree is wholly upon the land of one person, it is a part of his land^ and he is entitled to all its fruit,* not- withstanding the fact that some of the branches over- hang and some of the roots penetrate the land of an ad- jacent owner. ^ And this is thought to be true even after Whitmarsh v. Walker, 43 Mass. (1 Meto.) 313 ; Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss. 700 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 154 ; KiUmore v. Hewlett, 48 N. Y. 569; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 380 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 60; McClintook's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 865; Sterling v. Baldwin, 43 Vt. 306 ; EUison V. Brigham, 38 Vt. 64 ; Marshall v. Green, L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 35 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng. Rep. 318. ' Owens V. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 395 ; Russell V. Richards, 11 Me. (3 Fairf.) 371 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 583 ; 10 Me. (1 Fairf.) 429 ; 35 Am. Dec. 254 ; Drake v. Wells, 93 Mass. (11 Al- len) 141, 143 ; Giles V. Simonds, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 441 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 373; McNeal v. Emerson, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 884 ; Heath v. Randall, 58 Mass. (4 Gush.) 195 ; Nettleton v. Sikes, 49 Mass. (8 Met.) 34 ; Pierrepont v. Barnard, 6 N. Y. 379; S.C. 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 364; 3 Am. Lead. Cas. (4th ed.) 739, 740, 746, 753 ; Smith V. Benson, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 176; Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 380 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 60; Barnes v. Barnes, 6 Vt. 388. = See : White v. Foster, 102 Mass. 375 ; Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546; s.c. 97 Am. Deo. 53 ; Clap V. Draper, 4 Mass. 266 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 315 ; Knotts V. Hydrick, 13 Rich. (S. C.) L. 814. ' Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 738 ; Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y. 301, 303 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 537 ; Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 123 ; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 386 ; Holder v. Coates, 1 Moo. & M. 113 ; s.c. 23 Eng. C. L. 485 ; Masters v. PoUie, 3 RoUe, 141. Compare : Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Raym. 787. * Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y. 201 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 537 ; Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115; s.o. 88 Am. Dec. 645 ; Master v. PoUie, 2 Rolle, 141. See : Norrice v. Baker, 3 Bulst. 196; Mitten v. Faudrye, Poph. 161, 163. ' Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 738 ; Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y. 301 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 587 ; affirming 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 337, Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 133 ; s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 836 ; ChaPo II. § 58.] LINE TREES— COMMON PROPEETY. 57 the fruit ripens and falls from the branches of the tree on to the land of such adjoining owner ; and that the owner of the tree may enter peaceably and take the fallen fruit away.^ The adjoining owner, however, cannot be required to submit to this trespass of the tree on his land, but may cut the penetrating roots and lop oif the over- hanging branches.^ Sec. 58. same — Same — " Line trees."— When a tree stands upon the boundary line between two adjacent properties, so that a part of the trunk of the tree is on one side and a part on the ©ther side of the line, the tree and its fruit is then the common property of the owners of the adjoining estates, and neither can remove or in- jure either without the consent of the other.^ Skinner tJ. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115 ; s.c. 88 Am. Deo. 645. Eiglita of adjoining owners in tree wholly on one's land.— In Dubois V. Beaver, supra, Allen, J., says that diflerent opinions have been held as to the rights of the owners of adjoining es- tates in trees planted, and the bodies of which are wholly upon one, while the roots ex- tend and grow into the other ; some holding that, in .such cases, the tree, by reason of the nourishment derived from both estates, becomes the joint property of the owners of such Griffin v. Bixby, 13 N. H. 454 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 325 ; Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Eaym. 737; 2 Bouv. Inst. 158. While others, with better reason, it seems to me, hold that the tree is wholly the property of him on whose land the trunk stands. Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 117 ; s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 728 ; Holder v. Coates, 1 Moo. & M. 112; Masters v. PoUie, 3 EoUe, 141 ; Oabbe on Real Prop. § 96. 1 See : Parsons' Laws of Business (2d ed.) 817. ■2 Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161 ; s.c. 11 Pac. Rep. 623 ; Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 173 ; 8.C. 37 Am. Dec. 738, 731. Cope V. Marshall, 1 Burr. 368 ; Welch V. Nash, 8 East 394 ; s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 478 ; Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Raym. 737 ' Masters v. PoUie, 3 Rolle, 141, 144; Rex V. Pappineau, 2 Str. 688 ; Crowhurst iK Am. Burial Board, 39 L. T. N. S. 355. Noisauce of overhangingf branches abated, —In Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 173; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 728, 731, Btbsbll, J., ^ays : Now, if these branches were a nuisance to the defendant's land, he had clearly a right to treat them as such, and as such to remove them. But he as clearly had no right to convert either the branches or the fruit to his own use. Beardslee v. French, 7 Conn. 125 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 86 ; Dyson v. CoUick, 5 Barn. & Aid. 600 ; 7 Serg. & Lowb. 205 ; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 328 ; Welch V. Nash, 8 East 294. ' Griffin v. Bixby, 12 N. H. 454 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 225 ; Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 123 ; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 336 ; Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115; s.c. 88 Am. Deo. 645 ; Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Raym. 737; Anonymous Case, 3 Rolle, 355. See : Odiorna v. Lvford, 9 N. H. 502, 511,; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 387.. 5g CUT TREES— GEOUND-RENT. [BOOK I. Sec. 59. Same— Cut trees.— Although growing trees are a part of the soil, and pass with it on conveyance, whether upright or prostrate,^ as soon as trees are severed from the root by being cut or blown down they become " tim- ber" or "lumber," according to the use to which the fallen trunk can be applied.^ Where such tree-trunks are allowed to lie upon the ground where they fell, they will remain fixtures and pass by a deed of the land ; ^ but where the fallen trunks have been worked up into hewed timbers, posts and round logs, or other materials, and are lying loosely upon the land, though originally intended to be put into a building upon the land, they cease to be fixtures and do not pass by a deed of the realty, nor under the description of appurtenances.* Sec. 60. Ground-rent— Definition.-Ground-rent is a rent reserved by a grantor to himself and his heirs, as a consideration, or part consideration, of a conveyance of land in fee-simple.^ We are not aware that ground-rents, eo nomine, and as a species of real estate, exist in any state in the Union, aside from Pennsylvania.^ Being in the nature of a common-law rent, this species of property is deserving of a brief exposition here. Although ground- rents are frequently called, by conveyancers and others, rent charges, and although in drawing the ground-rent deed they are invariably treated as such, the land being expressly charged with the right of distress, yet it has been, settled since the case of IngersoU v. Sergeant,'' that they are rents service. Trespass for cutting "line" tree. '^ Bosler t). Kuhn, 8 Watts&S. (Pa.) — It is said in the case of Eel- 183, 185 ; yea v. Beaver, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) Kenege v. Elliott, 9 Watts (Pa.) 547, that whether " line trees " 258, 263 ; are common property or not, Anderson's L. Die. 496; trespass wiU lie by one owner 1 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 723. against an adjoining owner for " See an interesting and instructive cutting such a tree. paper on "Ground-rents in 1 Cockrill V. Downey, 4 Kan. 426. Philadelphia," in the Quarterly See : Ante, § 56. Journal of Economics, vol. II. , ' See : United States v. Schuler, G pp. 397-314. McL. C. C. 37. ' 1 Whart. (Pa.) 337. " Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. See : Franciscus v. Reigart 4 309. Watts (Pa.) 98 ; •> Cook V. Whiting, 16 lU. 480. Kenege v. EUiott, 9 Whart. (Pa ) 258, 263. ' Chap. II. §§ 61, 62.] CREATION OF GROUND-RENT. 59 Sec. 61. Same— Nature and method of creation. — Ground- rent, like rent granted for owelty of partition, or in lieu. of dower, partakes of the realty, and has no touch of personal responsibility in its complexion ; and even where the reservation is attended with a clause of distress, the land is exclusively the debtor ; ^ that is, the obligation to pay a ground-rent arises from no mere personal covenant to pay, but by force of the reservation and acceptance of the land. The former is by words exclusively of the grantor himself, but by which the grantee becomes bound upon acceptance of the estate.^ It must not be under- stood by this that the grantee is not personally liable upon any express covenants he may have made to pay rent, or in an action of debt or assumpsit at common law ; ^ but simply that the ground-rent is created by the reservation and not by the covenant to pay. The con- sideration for the payment of the rent is the enjoyment of the land ;* there is, therefore, no personal responsibil- ity independent of such enjoyment, and hence it is that the land is termed the debtor.^ The covenant is but an accessory, the rent being the principal.® Sec. 62. Same — Disposition of in case of intestacy .—The interest of the owner of the ground-rent is an estate alto- gether distinct, and of a very different nature from that which the owner of the land has in the land itself. Each is considered the owner of a fee-simple estate. The one has an estate of inheritance in the rent, and the other has an estate of inheritance in the land out of which the rent issues. The One is an incorporeal inheritance in fee, and the other is a corporeal inheritance in fee.^ Ground- ' Bosler v. Kuhn, 8 Watts & S. long as the title he receives from (Pa ) 183 185. the gi-antor proves sufficient to « 1 Co. Litt. '(19th ed.) '144a. secure and protect him'in that 3 See : Maule v. Weaver, 7 Pa. St. enjoyment. „ „ „ o^ 339 331 See : Nagle v. IngersoU, 7 Pa. St. * Warner vl Cault, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 185 ; 193 197 . St. Mary's Church v. Mues, 1 IngersoU v. Sergeant, 1 Whart. Whart. (Pa ) 229, 235 ; (Pa.) 337. Garrison v. Moore (Pa.), 9 Leg. le enioyment of the land is so Int. 2. . „ 1 completely the consideration « Chief Justice Gibson, m Hosiery. for the payment of the rent, Kuha, 8 Watts & S (Pa^) 185. that the grantee of the land is ' Irwin v. Bank of United States, bound to pay the rent only as 1 Pa. St. 849. 60 HEIRLOOMS— NOT RECOGNIZED HERE. [Book I. rents, being real estate,' in case of intestacy, go to the heirs and not to the administrator or executor.-' Sec. 63. Heirlooms — Definition.— Heirlooms are a class of goods and chattels whi(3h, contrary to the nature of chattel property, goes, by special custom in England, to the heir along with the inheritance, and not to the executor of the last proprietor,^ and is neither lands nor tenements, but a mere movable ; yet being inheritable is comprised under the general term hereditaments.^ Heirlooms are generally implements and articles of fur- niture * which cannot be taken away without damaging or dismembering the freehold ; ^ such as a horn long on the estate,® Journals of the House of Lords, delivered to a peer,^ family pictures,® doves in a dove-cot,^ rabbits in a warren,^" fish in a pond,^^ deer in a park,^ jewels in a crown, 1^ family jewels,^* and charts and evidences attendant on the inheritance.^'' Sec. 64. Same — Not recognized in America.— It is thought that the laws of this country do not recognize heir- looms,^® notwithstanding the fact that Ohio courts are said to have held that they are exempt from execution, i" ' Cobb V. Biddle, 14 Pa. St. 444. Shep. Touch. 470. ' 2 Bl. Com. 437 ; It seems that it wiU be otherwise I Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 18b ; where the deer are tamed. II Vin. Abr. 167. See : Morgan v. Abergavenny, See : Spooner v. Brewster, 3 Bing. 8 C. B. 768, 788 ; s.c. 65 Eng. 136 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 75 ; C. L. 767, 787. Byng V. Byng, 10 H. L. Cas. '^ g gj Com. 438 ; 1 Co. Litt. 18. 183 ; " These may be heirlooms inde- Petre v. Heneage, 13 Mod. 530 ; pendently of the real estate. s.c. 1 Ld. Raym. 738 ; SheUey v. Shelley, 37 L. J. Ch. Pusey V. Pusey, 1 Vem. 273. 357 ; s.c. L. R. 6Eq. 540 : 16 W ' 3 Bl. Com. 17 ; R. 1036. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 388 ; Books are not heirlooms, and if Shep. Touch. 433. limited to go with the entailed ■* Id. goods or estate, they become ' 4 Bl. Com. 437. the absolute property of the " Pusey V. Pusey, 1 Vem. 373. first tenant in taU. ' Upton V. Ferrers, 5 Ves. 806. Bridgewater v. Egerton, 3 Ves. 8 Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50 ; Sr. 133. Savile v. Scarborough, 1 Swan. " Lord v. Wardle, 3 Bing. N. C 537 ; s.c. 1 Wils. Ch. 239. 680 ; s.c. 32 Eng. C. L. 314. " Ford V. Tynte, 2 Johns. & H. 150. " See: Messeley's Estate, 5 W. N.C '» Ford V. Tynte, 2 Johns. & H. 103 ; 150. 1 "Woener's Am. L. Admrs. 590. " Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50 ; " McMicken v. Board of Directors Shep. Touch. 470. of University, 2 Am. L. Ree, " Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50 ; N. S. 489. Chap. II. § 65.] BUILDINGS REAL ESTATE WHEN. 61 awarded exemplary damages for their conversion,^ and to have declared that the bond given does not take their place in replevin.^ But the first case simply relates to family pictures, which are exempt by statute, the second is merely a reference, by way of illustration, to family pictures and other relics as objects having ideal values, and the third is barely a statement made arguendo by the court that where the thing replevied is of a peculiar or fictitious value, ' ' such as family portraits, heirlooms, personal mementos, and the like," the defendant will not necessarily be compelled to accept the appraisement in lieu of the article. Sec. 65. Houses and tatiildings.— A well-known maxim of the common law, quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit, whatever is affixed to or planted in the ground, is a part of the soil,^ is recognized alike in England* and America.^ Under this rule all houses and buildings are included in the terms " lands " and " real estate." ^ All houses heing prima facie a part of the realty,^ if one per- son erects a house upon the lands of another without any interest in the land, and without any agreement thereto, such house becomes a part of the realty and passes 1 Woolsey v. Seeley, "Wright (Ohio) Bellow v. New York Floating 360. Dry Dock Co., 113 N. Y. 263, '■ Smith V. McGregor, 10 Ohio St. 283 ; s.c. 20 N. Y. S. R. 707 ; 461 473 Beardsly v. Ontario Bank, 31 ' Kerr's " Adjudicated Words, Barb. (N. Y.) 619, 630 ; Phrases and Applied Maxims." Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. ^ Wake V. Hall, L. R. 8 App. Cas. (N. Y.) 43, 54 ; 195; s.c. 52 L. J. Q. B. 494 ; King i-. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 48 L. T. 834 ; 31 W. R. 585 ; 47 263, 366 ; J P. 548, aff'g L. R. 7 Q. B. D. St. Johnsbury & L. C. R. Co. v. 595 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 545 ; 44 L. T. Willard, 61 Vt. 134 ; s.c. 17 43 ; 45 J. P. 340 ; Atl. Rep. 38 ; 3 L. R. A. 528. Minsiiall v. Lloyd, 3 Mees. & W. « Coombs v. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch. 450 ; (Md.) 284 ; s.c. 22 Am. Dec. 233 ; Deard'en v. Evans, 5 Mees. & W. Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones, li ; 62 Mass. (8 Cush.) 184, 189 ; BroWn Max. 401 ; 3 Bl. Com. 17 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a. * Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones, ' Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ; 63 Mass. (8 Cush.) 184, 189 ; Mott v. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564 ; Price V. Weehawken Perry Co., Reid v. Kirk, 12 Rich. (S. C.) L. 31 N. J. Eq. (4 Stew.) 34 ; 54 ; Williamson v. New Jersey S. R. Lipsky v. Borgmann, 52 Wis. Co 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 317 ; 256 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 735 ; North Hudson R. Co. v. Booraem, Huebschmann v. McHenry, 39 28 N. J. Eq. (1 Stew.) 450, 454 ; Wis. 655. G2 BUILDINGS PASS WITH LAND. [Book I. with a conveyance of the land.^ And if a man builds a house on his own land with the materials of another, the property in the land vests in the building by the right of accession, and the owner of the land is only obliged to answer to the owner of the materials for their value. ^ This is on the principle that the nature has been changed and that the articles have be- come a part of the freehold.^ By the law of England, as well as by the civil law, trespassers who willfully take the property of another can acquire no right in it on the principle of accession, but the owner may reclaim it so long as he can establish its identity,* whatever alter- ation of form it may have undergone,^ unless it be changed into a different species and be incapable of res- titution to its former state ; and by the civil law even then the trespasser could acquire no right by accession^ unless the materials had been taken away in ignorance of their being the property of another.^ Sec. 66. Same — Built by tenant.— We will see in a sub- ' Bonney v. Foss, 63 Me. 248 ; not the owners but the builders. Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones, Mol. de Jure Mar. lib. 2, c.l, 62 Mass. (8 Gush.) 184, 189-190 ; § 7. Cooper V. Adams, 39 Mass. (6 See Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. Gush.) 87 ; (22 Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. Peirce V. Goddard, 39 Mass. 764. (22 Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. » See Bros. tit. " Property," pi. 33. Deo. 764 ; * Eiddle v. Driver, 12 Ala. 590 ; Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Mass. Davis v. Easley, 13 111. 192 ; 449 ; Herad v. James, 49 Miss. 336 ; Bimteyer v. Morss, 4 Abb. Ct. Silsburyu. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 879; App. (N. Y.) 55 ; s.c. 5 Abb. s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 307 ; (N. Y.) Pr. N. S. 44 ; 3 Keyes Hyde v. Cookson, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) (N. Y.) 349 ; 93 ; West V. Stewart, 7 Pa. St. 133 ; Curtis v. Groat, 6 John. (N. Y ) Leland v. Gasset, 17 Vt. 403. 168 ; s Mitchell v. Stetson, 61 Mass. (7 Snyderii. Vaux, 3Eawle(Pa.)433: Cush.) 4C5, 439 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 466. Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. ' Mitchell v. Stetson, 61 Mass (7 (33 Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. Cush.) 435, 439 ; Dec. 764 ; Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (22 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 360, 361. Pick.) 559, 561 ; s.c. 33 Am. It is laid down by MoUoy as a Dec. 764 ; settled principle of law that if Betts v. Lee, 5 John. (N. Y.) 348 • a man cuts down the trees of s.c. 4 Am. Deo. 368. ' ' ' another, or takes timber or " Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (33 plank prepared for the erection Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec or repairing of a dwelling- 764. house, nay, thoughsoraeof them See : Betts v. Lee, 5 John (N Y ) are for shipping and building 348; s.c. 4 Am. Deo '368- a ship, the property follows 2 Kent Comm. (13th ed.) 362 Chap. II. §§ 67, 68.] BUILDING— CONSENT TO ERECTION. 63 sequent chapter ^ that where a tenant erects upon the lands occupied by him buildings for his own convenience or comfort in the occupancy or use of the premises, he has the right, within certain restrictions, to remove such buildings during the term of his lease, or the period of his future possessions as such tenant. But if such tenant intended building for the permanent improvement of the freehold, or if he have a permanent interest in the land as remainderman or revisioner,^ is the husband of the tenant in fee,^ or be in possession under a contract of purchase,* the structure becomes a part of the realty.^ Sec. 6T. Same ^ Consent to erection.— Where a house or other building is erected upon the lands of another with his consent, either express or implied, it will remain the property of the builder,^ as between the parties, and he may maintain trover for it as against the owner of the land.'^ But as between innocent third parties and bona fide purchasers this rule does not prevail. The right to erect a building upon the lands of another being an in- corporeal hereditament and not a tangible right * should be created only by written instrument.^ Sec. 68. Same— Chamber or floor in building.- As one may have the title in fee to a house without further in- terest in the land on which it stands than a right to have ' See -.Post, chapter rv. "Fixtures." Leland v. Garrett, 17 Vt. 403 ; ' Cooper v.Adams,60 Mass. (6 Cush.) Lipsky v. Borgmann, 53 Wis. 87. 256 ; s.o. 9 N. W. Rep. 158. » Glldden v. Bennet, 43 N. H. 306. ^ Curtis v. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 154 ; See : Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Hartwell v. Kelly, 117 Mass. 235 ; Mass. 449. Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones, * Ogden V. Stock. 34 III. 533 s.c. 63 Mass. (8 Cush.) 184 ; 85 Am. Dec. 382 ; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429 ; Hemenway v. Cutler, 51 Me. 407 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 195 ; Pullen V. Bell, 40 Me. 814 ; . Harris v. Gillingham, 6 N. H. 9 ; Russell V. Richards, 10 Me. 429 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 701. s c 11 Id. 371 ; 36 Am. Dec. ' Central Branch R. Co. v. Fritz, 533 ; 20 Kan. 430 ; s.c. 37 Am. Rep. Poor V. Oakman, 104 Mass. 309 ; 175 ; Eastman v. Foster, 49 Mass. (8 Osgood v. Howard, 6 Me. (6 jlet.) 19. Greenl.) 452 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. See : Hinkley & E. Iron Co. v. 322. Black, 70 Me. 473. » Bract. II. 18 ; > Rimteverv. Morss, 3 Keyes (N. Y.) 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20a, 49a. 349 ; s.c. 4 Abb. Ct. App. (N. " 3 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 403. Y 1 55 ■ 5 Abb. (N. Y.) Pr. N. See : Trammall v. Trammall, 11 S/^.' Rich. (S. C.) L. 471. Christian v. Dripps, 28 Pa.St.279; 04 CHAMBER OR FLOOR IN BUILDING. [Book I. it remain there, so one may own the soil and other parties each own different floors respectively, or a single chamber even, in the building erected thereon, with right of way to and from.i Such owners will not be tenants in com- mon, but adjoining tenants, possessing as an essentially separate and distinct interest as if they were one by the side of the other.^ They will not be liable to each other for repairs to the roof or stories above, or to the founda- tion or stories below, or for damages caused because of a want of such repairs.^ This is because of the well-settled rule that the owner of one part of a building has no action to recover damages at law for the willful neglect of the owner of the other part in permitting his part to become ruinous and fall into decay, whereby the other part is injured.* In the case of Loring v. Bacon® ' Rhodes v. McCormick, 4 Iowa 368 ; s.o. 68 Am. Deo. 663 ; Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318 ; S.C. 36 Am. Dec. 396 ; Lowell M. H. V. Lowell, 43 Mass. (1 Met.) 538 ; Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575 ; Humphries v. Brogden, 13 Q. B. 739, 747, 756 ; s.c. 64 Eng. C. L. 738 ; Doe V. Burt, 1 T. R. 701. Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 396; McCormick v. Bishop, 38 Iowa 337; StockweU V. Hunter, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 448; s.o. 45 Am. Dec. 330, 333 ; Proprietors of Meeting-house v. City of Lowell, 43 Mass. (1 Met.) 541; Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575. ' Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 318 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 396 ; Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 Iowa 67 ; s.o. 11 Am. Rep. 185 ; Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575. See : Adams v. Marshall, 138 Mass. 338, 338-9 ; s.c. 53 Am. Rep. 371 ; • Calvert v. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74 s.c. 96 Am. Dec. 693 ; Wiggin V. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561 s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 193. Pierce v. Dyer, 109 Mass. 374 s.c. 13" Am. Rep. 716. Eeniedy at comiaon law. — In such cases, the remedy at common law is by writ de reparatione facitnda. Wiggin V. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561 ; s.o. 80 Am. Dec. 193, 195. Citing : Bowles' Case, 11 Co. 83; Tenant v. Goldwin, 1 Salk. 360; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 54b, 300b ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 370. So where one's house is ruinous and likely to fall on his neigh- bor's house, the same remedy is said to exist. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56b, and cases cited. Same — On action on the case, it is said it will lie at common law, for the neglect to r^^air, by reason of which a neighbor's house is in.iured. Wiggin V. Wiggin, supra. Citing : 1 Co. Litt. (10th ed.) 56b, note 3, and Fitzh. N. B. 137, note a. Same — Remedy in equity. — But in the case of Cheeseborough V. Green, 10 Conn. 319 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 396, the plaintiff owned and occupied the foun- dation and first and second stories of a building, and the defendant the third story and the roof, which had become leaky and ruinous, whereby the plaintiff's goods were injured, it was held that an action on the » 4 Mass. 575. Chap. II. § 68.] PART OWNERSOF BUILDINGS— REPAIRS. 65 the defendant was seized in fee-simple of the lower floor and the cellar under it, and the plaintiff was seized of a chamber over it and of the remainder of the house. The roof became in such a condition that unless repaired no part of the house could be comfortably occupied. The defendant refused to join in making the repairs. The plaintiff then made the necessary repairs, and brought an action in assumpsit for labor and materials employed and money expended, and the court said : "Although in the case the parties consider themselves as severally seized of different parts of one dwelling, yet in legal contempla- tion each of the parties has a distinct dwelling-house ad- joining together, the one being situated over the other. The lower room and the cellar are the dwelling-house of the defendant ; the chamber, roof, and other parts of the edifice are the plaintiff's dwelling-house. And in this action it appears that having repaired, liis own house, he calls upon the defendant to contribute to the expenses, because his house is so situated that the defendant derives a benefit from his repairs and would have suffered a damage, if he had not repaired. Upon a very full search into the principles and maxims of the common law, we cannot find that any remedy is provided for the plaintiff. " ^ case would not lie, but that the tenement, and that the owner remedy must be sought in of the upper tenement has no equity. right to destroy the coverings See : A^'iggin «. Wiggin,43 N. H. that protect the lower tene- 561 ; S.C. 80 Am. Dec. 192, 186 ; ment, although, at common Campbell v. Mesier, 4 John. Ch. law, neither is bound to the (N. Y.) 335 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. other to repair his tenement. 570; The actual decisions on this 4 Kent Com. (l.Sth ed.) 371, 412. subject are meager, except in ' In the latter case of Adams v. the case of mines (see : Post, Marshall, 138 Mass. 228, 238-9, § 99), where the right of the the court say that in the case owner of the soil to subjacent of Pierce v. Dyer. 109 Mass. support is well settled." 374, "it is assumed that the Citing : Cheeseborough u Green, right of support included that 10 Conn. 318; s.c. 26 Am. Dec. of shelter, but no decisions to 396 ; that effect have been shown us. Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 Iowa Some analogy may perhaps be 07; s.c. 11 Am. Eep. 135 ; derived from the reciprocal McCormick v. Bishop, 28 Iowa rights and obligations of the 233 ; owner of an upper to the owner Calvert v. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74; of a lower tenement in the s.c. 96 Am. Dec. 693 ; sam building. It has been Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 574 ; said that the owner of the lower Stevens v. Thompson, 17 N. H. tenement has no right to de- 103 ; stroy the supports of the upper Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 498 ; 5 66 EFFECT OF DESTRUCTION OF BUILDINa. [Book I. Sec. 69. Same— Same— EflFect of destruction of building. — If distributed in the possession of such floors or chamber the owner may maintain ejectment therefor.^ In such a case each individual proprietor of floor or chamber has an interest in the soil so far as necessary for the enjoyment of the premises, and no further,^ and if the building should be destroyed by fire, or otherwise, the interest of the individual owning such floor or chamber in the land on which the house stood will be lost,^ in the absence of astipulation in the conveyance for re-building.* Dalton V. Angus, 6 App. Cas. 740 ; ^ Stockwell v. Hunter, 53 Mass. (11 s.o. 34 Moak's Eng. Rep. 742 ; Met.) 448 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 220. Caledonian R. Co. v. Sprot, 2 ^ Shawmutt Nat. Bank v. Boston, Macq. 449 ; 118 Mass. 125 ; Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W. Stockwell v. Hunter, 52 Mass. (11 60 ; Met.) 448 ; s. c. 45 Am. Dec. 320. Humphries v. Rogden, 12 Q. B. * Stockwell v. Hunter, 52 Mass. (11 739 ; s.c. 64 Eng. C. L. 138. Met.) 448 : s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 230. ' Otis V. Smith, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) See : McMillan v. Solomon, 42 293 ; Ala. 356 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 654 ; Doe V. Burt, 1 T. R. 701. Ainsworth v. Ritt, 38 Cal. 89 ; Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 498. Sec. 70. Sec. 71. Sec. 73. Sec. 73. Sec. 74. Sec. 75. Sec. 76. Sec. 77. Sec. 78. Sec. 79. Sec. 80. Sec. 81. Sec. 83. Sec. 83. Sec. 84. Sec. 85. Sec. 86. Sec. 87. Sec. 88. Sec. 89. Sec. 90. SEa 91. Sec. 93. Sec. 93. Sec. 94. Sec. 95. Sec. 96. Sec. 97. Sec. 98. Sec. 99. Sec. 100. Sec. 101. Sec. 103. Sec. 103. Sec. 104. Sec. 105. Sec. 106. CHAPTER m. WHAT IS REAL PROPERTY — Continued. Ice a part of the realty. Same — On navigable streams. Same — Same — Where title extends to the thread of the stream. . Same — On non-navigable streams. Same — On ponds — 1. " Great ponds.'' Same — Same — 3. Mill-ponds, Same — On canals. Same — Appropriation of ice. Incorporeal hereditam.ents — Definition and nature. Land usually real estate. Same — Exceptions to the general rule. Leasehold estate. Light and air. Manure — Real estate when. Same — ^Where made in other than agricultural pursuits. Same — Made on non-agricultural lands. Same — Agreement of parties respecting. Same — New Jersey and North Carolina doctrine. Same — ^English rule. Market-stalls. Mines and minerals. Same — Common-law doctrine. Same — Eoyal charters. Same — New York doctrine. Sam e — Pennsylvania doctrine. Same — Georgia doctrine. Same — California doctrine. Same — Severance and conveyance. Same — Reservation of mineral ores. Same — Surface support. Same— Same— Rights of grantee. Same — Same — When owner retains surface. Same— -Same— Where owner grants surface and retains minerals. Money real estate when. Movables realty when. Railroads— Road-bed, rails, etc. Same — Foundations, columns, etc., of railroad. 67 '^ 68 ICE A PART OF THE REALTY. [Book L Sec. 107. Same — Rolling stock. Sec. 108. Sea-weed — Marine increment. Sec. 109. Same — ^When cast between high and low water-marks. Sec. 110. Saw-mills, saw-dust, etc., real estate when. Sec. 111. "Water real estate when. Section 70. loe a part of the realty.— While it is true that a riparian owner has simply a usufructuary interest in the water of a stream flowing through his land, yet when that water is congealed and the ice attaches to the soil it becomes a part of the land. ^ Hence the owner of the soil under the water on which the ice forms is to be re-' garded as the owner of the ice.^ This is true not only of ponds wholly or partially forming or being entirely upon such person's premises, but his riparian ownership of the bed of the stream will carry with it the right of the ice forming upon the surface of such streams, as far as riparian right of the soil extends.^ Sec. 71. Same— On navigable streams.— By the common law, where rivers are above the ebb and flow of the tide, but navigable in fact, the title of the riparian owner, prima facie, extends to the center of the stream ; and this rule has been held in this country to apply to our main rivers.* In some of the states, however, such as ' Village of Brooklyn v. Smith, 104 » Bigelow v. Shaw, 65 Mich. 341 ; 111. 429 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep. s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 903 ; 33 N. Y. 90 ; Rep. 800. Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. v. See : Village of Brooklyn v. Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.c. 46 Am. Smith, 104 111. 439 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep. 580, 584 ; Rep. 90 ; State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 402 ; Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall, s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 224. 101 lU. 46; s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 196; ' Washmgton Ice Co. v. Shortall, People's Ice Co. v. The Excelsior, 101 III. 146 ; s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 44 Mich. 229 ; s.c. 38 A. R. 246 ; 196 ; Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ; State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 402 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 435. s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 324 ; " See : Adams v. Pease, 2 Conn. 481 ; Edgerton v. Huff, 26 Ind. 35 ; Houck v. Yates, 82 111. 179 ; Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, Braxon v. Bressler, 64 111. 488 ; l'i'3 ; City of Chicago v. McGinn, 51 111. Cummmgs v. Barrett, 64 Mass. 266 ; s.o. 2 Am. Rep. 295 ; (10 Cush.) 186 ; City of Chicago v. Laflin, 49 lU. Higgins V. Kusterres, 41 Mich. 172 ; 318 ; s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 160 ; 2 N. Middleton v. Pritchard, 3 Scam. W. Rep. 13 ; (111.) 510, 516 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. Lorman v Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ; 113 ; 82 s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 435 ; Bay City Gaslight Co. v. Indus- Myer v. Whitaker, 55 How. (N. " trial Works, 28 Mich. 183 ; Y.) Pr. 376 ; see comment on, . Ryan v. Brown, 18 Mich 196 ■ in 21 Am. L. Rep. 330. s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 154 ; ' Chap. III. § 71.] ICE ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS. 69 lowa,^ Kansas,^ Missouri,^ North Carolina,* Pennsyl- vania,® and perhaps elsewhere,'' it has been held that the soil under rivers navigable in fact, though not subjected to the ebb and flow of the tide, does not belong to the riparian owner, but to the state. And where there is no ownership of the subjacent soil, a riparian owner has no title to the ice forming on the surface of the river.'^ The title of the soil being in the state, and the stream being a public highway, the ownership of the ice is held to rest in the general public, or in the state as the representative of that public. The riparian proprietor is said to have no more title to the ice than he has to the fish. "It is simply this, that his land joins the land of the state. The fact that it so joins gives him no title to that land or to anything formed or grown upon it, any more than it does to anything formed or grown or found upon the land of any individual neighbor. " ^ In those states where this view obtains the doctrine is that the ice belongs to the first appropriator, when such appropriation is effected by marking, surveying, and staking off of the ice.* Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ; Tomlin i\ Dubuque & M. R. Co., S.C. 77 Am. Dec. 439 ; 33 Iowa 106 ; s.c. 7 Am. Rep. Schurmeier v. St. Paul & Pac. R. 176 ; Co., 10 Minn. 83 ; s.c. 83 An. MoManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa Deo. 59; 1. Magnolia v. Marshall, 39 Miss. ° Wood v. Fowler, 36 Kans. 083 ; 109 ; s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 330. Morgan v. Reading, 11 Miss. 366 ; ^ Benson v. Morrow, 61 Mo. 345 ; Garit v. Chambers, 3 Ohio, 496 ; Hickey v. Hazard, 3 Mo. App. Hart V. Hill, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 134 ; 480. Arnold v. Elmore, 16 Wis. 509 ; « Wilson v. Forbes, 3 Dev. (N. C.) Rundle v. Delaware, etc.. Canal L. 30 ; Co., 1 WaU. Jr. C. C. 375, 294. State v. Glen, 7 Jones (N. C.) L. " Fresh rivers, of whatsoever 331. kind, do of common right be- ' Cuson v. Blazer, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 475 ; long to the owners of the soil Shrunk v. Schuylkill Nav. Co., adjacent," is the expressive Ian- 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 71. guage of the common law, and « See : Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. is of universal appUoation. 334 ; bk. 24 L. ed. 324 ; Chief Justice Ruger, in Smith Railroad Co. v. Schurmeier, 74 U. V. City of Rochester, 92 N. Y. S. (7 Wall.) 372 ; bk. 19 L. ed. 463, 478 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep. 393. 74. Citine : Chenango Bridge Co. v. " Wood v. Fowler, 36 Kans. 683 ; Paiie, 83 N. Y. 178; s.c. 38 s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 330, 335. Am. Rep. 407 ; ' Id. Clinton v Myers, 46 N. Y. 511 ; ' Woodman v. Pitman, 79 Me. 456 ; S.C. 7 Am. Rep. 373. s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 343 ; 10 Atl. > Houghton V. Chicago R. Co., 47 Rep. 321 ; , „ -. , Iowa 370 ; Hickey v. Hazard, 8 Mo. App. Musserv. Hershery, 43 Iowa 356 ; 480. 70 ICE ON NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS. [Book I. Sec. 73. Same— Same— Wliere title extends to thread of stream.- In those states where the title of the riparian owner extends to the thread of the stream, the common- law rule of ownership prevails, and the adjoining pro- prietors own the banks and bed of the streahi, and have a right to make such use of the land, and of all the bene- fits of the stream, as will not interfere with the public easement or servitude ; ^ and the ice formed on the water over the land of such proprietor is regarded as his exclu- sive property.^ To this rule, however, there are some exceptions. In Maine ^ and Massachusetts,* the right of harvesting ice upon a navigable river is not an abso- lute right in any person, but is a pubhc right com- mon to all persons who have a right to go upon the stream ; and depends very much upon first appropria- tion,^ as one man's possession may exclude others. Sec. 73. Same— On non-navigable waters.- The general rule applicable to and governing as to ice formed- on fresh navigable waters applies more universally to ice formed on fresh non-navigable streams fiowing in a nat- ural channel,® for the reason that most, if not all, those states which deny to the riparian proprietors the ownership of or right to the soil of the navigable fresh- water rivers do not hesitate to accord such right to the riparian pro- prietors along non-navigable fresh-water streams. Sec. 74. Same— On ponds— 1. " Great ponds."— It is on 'the theory that the soil beneath the water of certain bodies of fresh water, known as " Great Ponds," is the ■■ Fletcher v. Thunder Bay Elver Edgerton v. Huff, 36 Ind. 36. Boom Co., 51 Mich. 277, 284 B.C. 16 K W. Rep. 645 ; Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co. 41 Mich. 453, 466 ; s.c. 2 N. W. Rep. 639 ; Ryan v. Brown, 18 Mich. 207 S.C. 100 Am. Dec. 154 ; Lorman v. Bensin, 8 Mich. 18 3 See : Woodman v. Pitman, 79 Me. 456 ; S.C. 1 Am. St. Rep. 343 ; 10 Atl. Rep. 821. See : Paiae v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, 173 ; Inhabitante of West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 89 Mass. (7 AUen) 158. s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 489. ' ggg . p^gf^ g ^7. ' Village of Brooklyn v. Smith, 104 * See : BrookviUe & M. Hydraulic 111. 429 ; S.C. 44 Am. Rep. 90 ; Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 184 ; s.c. Washington Ice Co. v. ShortaU, 46 Am. Rep. 580, 584 ; 101 m. 46 ; s.c.40 Am. Rep.196; Smith v. The City of Rochester, State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 432 ; 92 N. Y. 468 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep S.C. 5 Am, Rep. 324 ; 393. Chap. III. § 75.] ICE ON GREAT PONDS. 71 property of the state, that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts have declared that the ice forming on such bodies of water belongs to whoever can get access to and cut it,^ so long as he does not interfere with the reason- able exercise by others of the like rights in the pond.^ The same rule prevails in Maine.^ But where the ice has formed on water over the land of a private proprietor, and not within the natural limits of a " great pond, " — the soil of the bed of whi6h is held to be public property, — the ice will be the individual property of the owner of the shores and bottom of the pond or stream.* Sec. T5. Same— Same— 2. Mill-ponds.— A riparian owner whose title runs to the center of a natural or artificial pond has the right to cut the ice on the water over his land, notwithstanding the right of another to flood such land for mill purposes, so long as he does not thereby actually and perceptibly injure the mill-owner in hia privilege.^ This right results from and grows out of the title to the bed of the stream or pond, and such right to the use of the water as results therefrom.^ The right of a 1 See : Rowell v. Doyle, 131 Mass. See : Washington Ice Co. v. 474 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 255, note ; Shortall, 101 111. 46 ; s.c. 40 Am. Gage V. Steinkrauss, 131 Mass. Rep. 196 ; 222 ; Jullen v. Woodsmall, 83 Ind. 568 ; Hittinger v. Eames, 121 Mass. Edgerton v. Huff, 26 Ind. 35 ; ,539 ; State v. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 403 ; Fay V. Salem & D. Aqueduct Co., s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 224 ; 111 Mass, 27 ; Paine i;. Woods, 108 Mass, 160, 173; Commonwealth v. Vincent, 108 Elliot v. Fitchburg R. Co., 64 Mass. 441, 446 ; Mass. (10 Cush.) 191 ; Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, Cummingsu Barrett, 64 Mass. (10 169, 173 ; Cush.) 186 ; Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Bigelow v. Shaw, 65 Mich. 341 ; Stoddard,89 Mass. (7 AUen) 158; r..c. 8 Am. St. Rep. 902 ; 33 N. Cummings v. Barrett, 64 Mass. (10 W. Rep. 800 ; Cush.) 186. Brown v. Brown, 30 N. Y. 519; ' Rowell 'v. Doyle, 131 Mass. 474 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 406 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 335, note ; Marshall v. Peters, 13 How. (N. Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Y.) Pr. 218 ; Stoddard, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) DeBaun i;. Bean, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 158. 336 ; 'See: Brastow t). Rockport Ice Co. , Merritt v. Brmkerhoff, 17 John. 77 Me. 100. (^- Y.) 300 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. * See : Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 404. ]^gO 173 « Bigelow v. Shaw, 65 Mich. 341 ; s BrookVille' & M. Hydraulic Co. v. s.c. 8 Am. St. Rep. 903 ; 33 N. Butler, 19 Ind. 134; s.c. 46 Am. W. Rep. 800. jjgrj 580 • Citing : Washington Ice Co. v. Dodge V. Berry, 36 Hun (N. Y.) Shortall, 101 111,46 ; s.c. 40 Am. 246. Rep. 196 ; 72 ICE ON MILL-PONDS. [Book I. mill-owner to pond water on the land of another is simply a license or an easement,^ and does not take from the owner of the fee the right to make any profitable use he can of the land thus flooded, whether the right of flow- age is acquired by agreement under statute, or through prescription ; for in either case no right is acquired to the land itself, or to the profits which a use of it will produce.^ The owner of the servient estate has a right to all the profits which may arise from the soil, and may make such use of the soil as is not inconsistent with the license or easement.^ The owner of the land flooded must not indeed draw off by canals, aqueducts, or ditches the water which has been raised by the dam,* but he may use it for watering his cattle, irrigating his crops and garden, or any other reasonable purpose which does not particularly and in a perceptible and substantial degree impair the right to run the mill ; and he may there- fore take and carry away the water, when formed into ice, for use or for sale, so long as he does not thereby appreciably diminish the head of water at the dam of the mill-owner.^ Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. v. Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160 ; Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.o. 46 Am. Storm v. Manchang Co., 95 Mass. Eep. 580 ; (13 Allen) 10 ; Stevens v. Kelley, 78 Me. 445 ; Williams v. Nelson, 40 Mass. (33 S.C. 57 Am. Eep. 813 ; Pick.) 141 ; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 45 ; Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, O'Linda v. Lathrop, 38 Mass. (21 173 ; Pick.) 293 ; Marshall v. Peters, 13 How. (N. Earl-y. De Hart, 13 N. J En (1 Y. ) Pr. 318 ; Beas. ) 380 ; s. c. 72 Am. Dec. 395 ; Dodge 17. Berry,36 Hun(N.Y.) 246. Bean v. Coleman, 44 K. H. 539 ; ' Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. v. Emons v. Turnbull, 2 John (N Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.c. 46 Am. Y.) 313 ; Rep. 580, 583 ; Mason v. Hill, 5 Bam. & Ad. 1 ; Snowden v. Wilas, 19 Ind. 10; s.o. 87 Eng. C. L. 1. s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 370 ; ^ Julien v. Woodsmal'l, 83 Ind. 568. Baeri;.Martm, 8Blaokf.(Ind.)317. See : Brookville & M. Hydraulic ' Brookville & M. Hydraulic Go. v. Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 184 • s c Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.c. 46 Am. 46 Am. Rep. 580, 582 ; ' Eep. 580. Mason v. Hill, 5 Barn. & Ad. 1 ; See : Julien v. Woodsmall, 82 s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 1. Ind. 568 ; * Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 402 ; 173. s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 334 ; See,: Brookville & M.Hydraulic Edgerton v. Huff, 36 Ind. 35 ; Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; so Snovrden v. Wilas, 19 Ind. 10 ; 46 Am. Rep. 580, 584 ; Baer -y.Martin, 8 Blackf.(Ind.)317; Storm v. Manchang Co., 95 Mass Maxwell v. MoAtee, 9 B. Mon. (13 Allen) 10 ; (Ky.) 30 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 409 ; Cook v. Hull, 20 Mass. (S Pick ) Baker v. Frick, 45 Md. 837, 339; 269 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec 208 S.C. 34 Am. Eep. 506 ; ^ pai^g ^_ Woods, 108 Mass. 160, 173; Chap. III. §§ 76, 77.] ICE ON CANALS. '73 Sec. T6. Same— On canals.— Where the public has con- demned and taken land for the purpose of constructing a canal, the owners of the fee of the lands through or over which the canal passes, like the riparian proprietors along a river or pond, are entitled to harvest the ice therefrom, provided the taking does not interfere with the use of the water for navigation and hydraulic pur- poses.^ But where the legislature or the constitution of the state has authorized the seizure of the fee when re- quired for public purposes, and the fee is taken, the owner will not have the right to the ice forming on the water of the canal adjoining and attaching to his premises. The reason of this is because in such case the owner must be awarded, as compensation for the taking, the value of his land ; and the payment of this award deprives him not only of the land itself, but also of all the rights and privileges attaching thereto.^ Where the state condemns the fee for the construction of a canal, and afterwards, for a consideration, lets the canal and the waters thereof for a specified time, trans- ferring for that time " all tolls and revenues to be derived, or which may accrue from " the use of such canal, this will give to the transferees as much right to the ice forming on such canal, and to the proceeds thereof, as to the tolls and water-rents.^ Sec. 17. Same— Appropriation of ice.- In those states in which the title to the soil of the bed of the navigable streams and large ponds is in the state, the ice forming Gumming v. Barrett, 64 Mass. Of the latter case we need only (10 Cush.) 186. sa3-it is confessedly against the Mill River Co. v. S m i t h, and weight of authority, is con- ffiyer v. Whitiber, criticised. — demned by the courts of the In the case Brookville & M. same state, is the decision of a Hydraulic Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. single judge, and is not well 134 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 580, 584, reasoned. The decision in the Judge Elliot, after reviewing first of these cases is that of a the authorities and giving his divided court, and the reason- adherence to the doctrine laid ing upon which it is founded is down in the text, says : "With unsatisfactory." the exception of the cases of ' Edgerton v. Huff, 26 Ind. 36. Mill Eiver, etc., Co. v. Smith, ^ Water Works Co. v. Burkhart, 41 34 Conn. 462, and Myer v. Ind. 364. Wliitaker, 5 Abbott (N. Y.) N. ' Cromie v. Trustees Wabash & Erie Cas. 173, we have found none Canal Co., 71 Ind. 208. asserting a contrary doctrine. Y4 APPROPRIATION OF ICE. [Book I. thereon belongs to the public at large, and any one who can gain access to the same may appropriate and cut it. ^ But to entitle one person to property in any portion of the ice on such a stream or pond, as against any other comer, there must be definite acts of appropriation ; such as staking off and definitely marking, scraping off the snow, or otherwise preparing the ice for harvesting.^ It is said by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine in the recent case of Woodman v. Pitman,^ that ice-fields on navigable rivers, after being stalced, fenced, and scraped, are so far the property of the appropriator that an action will lie against one who willfully disturbs his right. A different rule, however, seems to be applied in Massa- chusetts and Maine to what are known as ' ' Great Ponds."* It is said that the right to cut ice on these ponds is common to all the public ; but that no person can, by his own act, appropriate a part of such a pond by scraping it or setting up stakes, and thereby exclude the public from it.^ Sec. Y8. Incorporeal hereditaments— Definition and nature. — Incorporeal hereditaments are certain inheritable rights which are not, strictly speaking, of a corporeal nature, or land, but are, by their nature or by use, annexed to corporeal inheritances, and certain rights issuing out of them, or concerning them ; ^ such as a freehold right to a pew in a church,'' or a seat in a board of exchange,^ or a stall in a public market.^ The incorporeal rights known to our laws are air, annuities, aquatic rights, commons, easements, franchises, licenses, light, offices, routes, and ways, and are all fully treated elsewhere. Sec. 79. Land usually real estate.— Land is usually re- garded as real estate, but where by will,i° contract, mar- ' Wood V. Fowler, 36 Kans. 682 ; Rowell v. Doyle, 131 Mass 474 s.c. 40 Am. Eep. 380. <■ 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 408. « See : Barrett v. Eockport Ice Co., '3 Add. Eccl. 419 ; ' 84 Me. 155 ; s.c. 35 Atl. Rep. 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 402. 803 ; 46 Alb. L. J. 295. See : Ante, %% 39-43. » 79 Me. 456 ; s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. » Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523 ■ bk 342 ; 10 Atl. Rep. 321. 24 L. ed. 864. * See : Ante, § 74. a ggg . p^gf^ g gg^ 5 See : People's Ice Co. v. Daven- '» Rinkin v. Itinkln, 36 111. 293 • s c port, 149 Mass. 322 ; 87 Am. Dec. 205 ; ' ' ' Chap. III. § 79.] LAND USUALLY REAL ESTATE. riage articles, settlements, or otherwise, land may have been directed to be sold and converted into money, it will be regarded as personal property and not real estate,^ and Jennings v. Smith, 29 111. 133 ; Baker i\ CopenbargejIftS lU. 103; s.o. 58 iy^Jjec.iiet)^^ Heslet V. wKKk, 8 111. App. 26 ; MeUy V. Wooa, 71 Pa. St. 488; s.o. 10 Am. Rep. 719 ; Neeley v. Grantham, 58 Pa. St. 443; Smihe v. Biffle, 3 Pa. St. 53 ; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 156 ; Simpson v. Kelso, 8 Watts (Pa.) 353; Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 253 ; S.C. 29 Am. Dec. 48 ; Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 641 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 641 ; Proctor i: Ferebee, 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 143 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 34 ; Tazewell v. Smith, 1 Rand. (Va.) 313 ; s.c. 10 Am. Deo. 533. A oonTersion of realty into personalty occurs where a testator devises realty to his executors in trust to seU and to apply the proceeds to certain uses, as to create a fund out of which to pay debts and legacies (Proctor v. Fere- bee, 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 143; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 34), or is ap- Slied to the use of one for fe, and afterwards distributed among certain parties in re- mainder. SmUie v. BifHe, 3 Pa. St. 53 ; s.c. 44 Am. Deo. 156. In such a case property becomes personalty immediately upon the testator's deatli,forall pur- poses of the disposition, as ef- fectually as if the testator had himself sold the land and be- queathed the proceeds in the sahae way. Kane v. Gott, 34 Wend. (N. Y.) 641 ; s.o. 35 Am. Dec. 641. Where land is directed by will to.be sold equity will treat it as money unless some one, having a right to do so, elect to take the land. Tazewell v. Smith, 1 Rand. (Va.) 313; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 533. Thus where proceeds of land are devised the devisee may elect to take the land. Stuck V. Mackey, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 196 ; Smith V. Starr, 8 Whart. (Pa.) 63, 66 : s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ; Burr V. Sein, 1 Whilrt. (Pa.) 253 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 48 ; Ashby V. Palmer, 1 Meriv. 396. Election to tike lands regarded as a new acquisition of the title to such lands. Proctor V. Ferebee, 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 143 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 34 ; Foster's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 391, 899 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 553 ; Simpson v. Kelso, 8 Watts (Pa.) 353; Hannah v. Swarner, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 233 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 754; Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 353 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 48. Same — Where there are several dis- tributees the election to take the land must be made by all. NicoU V. Scott, 09 111. 539 ; Ridgeway v. Underwood, 67 lU. 419, 430 ; Jennings v. Smith, 29 111. 133 ; Baker i\ Copenbarger, 15 111. 103; s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 600 ; Heslet V. Heslet, 8 111. App. 36. ' See : Neall v. Hill, 16 Cal. 145 ; Collins V. Chaman's Heir, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 118; s.o. 61 Am. Dec. 179 ; Loughborough's Ex. v. Lough- borough's Devisees, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 549 ; Bliss V. Matteson, 45 N. Y. 23 ; Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303, 373 ' Butts 'v. Wood, 37 N. Y. 817 ; Flanagan v. Flanagan, 8 Abb. ' (N. Y.) N. Cas. 413, 417 ; Johnson v. Bennett, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 7 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 209, reversing 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 531 ; Arnold -u. Gilbert, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 195, 196 ; Eells V. Lynch, 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 465, 483 ; Grant v. Grant, 3 Redf. (N. Y.) 283, 286 ; Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 641; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 641; Proctor V. Ferebee, 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 143 ; s.o. 36 Am. Deo. 84 ; Parkinson's Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 458; Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 252 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 48 ; T6 DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE CONVERSION. [Book I. passes by gift or under general or residuary bequest of personal property,^ and in the absence of a will be- comes assets in the hands of executors or administrators.^ This doctrine of equitable conversion is founded upon the familiar rule of equity according to which that which is agreed to be done, and which should be done, is re- garded as having been done.^ Tazewell v. Smith, 1 Rand. (Va.) 313 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 533 ; Koehler v. Black River Falls Iron Co., 67 U. S. (2 Black.) 715 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 339 ; Dodge V. Woolsey, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 331, 341 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 401 ; Hayford v. Benlows, Ambl. 583 ; s.c. Free. Ch. 451; 2 Vern. 718; Gibb. Exch. Rep. 125 ; Morret v. Paske, 3 Atk. 51 ; Fox V. Mackreth, 2 Bro. Ch. 400 ; S.C. 2 Cox Eq. 320 ; 1 Eq. Lead. Cas. Ill ; Gt. Luxembourg R. Co. v. Magnay, 25 Beav. 586 ; Gresley v. Mousley, 4 DeG. & J. 78 ; s.c. 3 DeG. F. & J. 433 ; Knight V. Bowyer, 2 DeG. & J. 421, 445 ; Hesse v. Briant, 6 DeG. M. & G. 623; Holman v. Loynes, 4 DeG. M. & G. 270 ; Savery v. King, 5 H. L. Cas. 627; Knox V. Gye, L. R. 5 H. L. 656, 675; s.c. 4 Moak's Eng. Rep. 44 ; Wedderburn v. Wedderbum, 4 Myl. & Cr. 41 ; Docker v. Somes, 2 Myl. & K. 665; Bent V. Stamford, 1 Salk. 154 ; Keech v. Sandford, 1 Sel. Cas. in Ch. temp. King, 61 ; s.c. 1 Eq. Lead. Cas. 48 ; Powell V. Glover, 3 Pr. Wms. 253. Compare: Ware v. Murph, 1 Rich. (S. C.) L. 54; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 97 ; Evans v. Kingsberry, 2 Rand. (Va.) 120 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 779. ' Fisher v. Banta. 66 N. Y. 468 ; Estate of Dobson, 11 Phila. (Pa). 81; Chandler v. Pocock, L. K. 16 Ch. Div. 648 ; s.c. 15 Id. 491 ; Blake v. Blake, L. R. 15 Ch. Div. 481; Farrar v. Winterton, 5 Beav. 1; WaU V. Colshead, 2 DeG. & J. 683; Stead V. Newdigate, 2 Meriv. 531. ' Loftis V. Glass, 15 Ark. 680 ; Rawlings' Ex'r v. Landes, 2 Bush (Ky.) 158 ; Smithers v. Hooper, 33 Md. 273 Maddox v. Dent, 4 Md. Ch. 543 Carr v. Ireland, 4 Md. Ch. 251 Hurtt V. Fisher, 1 Harr. &G. (Md.) 88, 96 ; Wurt's Ex'rs v. Page, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E. Gr.) 365; Hood V. Hood, 85 N. Y. 561 ; Fisher v. Banta, 66 N. Y. 468 ; Van Vechteni;. Keator, 63 N. Y. 52 ■ Moncrief v. Ross, 50 N. Y. 431 ; Harris v. Slaght, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 470; Johnson v. Bennett, 39 Barb. 237 ; Freeman v. Smith, 60 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 311 ; Ex parte McBee, 63 N. C. 332 ; Croom V. Herring, 4 Hawks. (N. C.) 393 ; Brothers v. Cartwright, 3 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 113 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 563 ; Collier v. Collier's Ex'rs, 3 Ohio St. 369 ; Ferguson v. Stuart's Ex'rs, 14 Ohio, 140, 146 ; Jones V. Caldwell, 97 Pa. St. 42 ; Eby's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 341 ; McClure's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 414; Brolasky v. Gaily "s Ex'rs, 51 Pa. St. 509 ; Parkinson's Appeal, 33 Pa.St.455; Wilkins v. Taylor, 8 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 391 ; Washington's Ex'r v. Abraham, 6 Gratt. (Va.), 66, 77 ; Siter V. M'Clanachan, 3 Gratt, (Va.) 280 ; Commonwealth v. Martin's Ex'rs, 5 Munf. (Va.) J17, 127 ; Hoddel V. Pugh, 33 Beav. 489 ; Griffith V. Ricketts, 7 Hare, 399 ; Ashby V. Palmer, 1 Meriv. 296 ; Elliott V. Fisher, 13 Sim. 505. * See : Stokes v. Detrick, 75 Md. 356 ; s.c. 33 Atl. Rep. 846 ; Chap. III. §§ 80, 81.] LEASE-HOLD ESTATES. 77 Sec. 80. Same — Exceptions to the general rule.— But where land is to be converted into money for an especial purpose, it is not to be regarded as personal property to all intents and purposes. ^ Thus where land is directed to be sold on a certain condition, it is not thereby con- verted into personal estate ; ^ but on valid sale of the estate as directed, the surplus will be considered as per- sonalty.^ It is the established doctrine in the courts of equity that where there is an investment of a part or the whole of the personal estate of a lunatic^ or an infant^ in lands, it is to be taken as personalty on the death of the one without a recovery of his reason and the demise of the other without attaining majority, and goes to the heir at law.^ In England it is said that the reason why an infant's personal estate turned into real estate is con- sidered as personalty is on account of the different ages at which the infant may dispose of personal and real estates, and not in favor of one representative more than another.''' Sec. 81. Lease-hold estate.— At common law leases of houses or lands for terms of years are not real property but personal estate,^ even though the rent be nominal and the term ninety -nine or even one thousand years.® In this country a disposition has been shown to assimilate freeholds for a long term of years to real estate. The Eipley v. Seligman, 88 Mich. 177 ; * OoUins v. Champ's Heirs, 15 B. s.c. 50 N. W. Rep. 143 ; Mon. (Ky.) 118 ; s.c. 61 Am. Ashhurst v. Potter, 29 N. J. Eq. Dec. 179, 180. (3 Stew.) 635, 643 ; Lunatic's land— In England In the Williamson v. New Jersey S. R. case of a lunatic the land will Co. , 29 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 311 ; go to the next of kin and not to s.c. 15 Am. Rev. Rep. 573 ; the heir at law. Chamberlain v. Taylor, 105 N. Y. Awdley v. Awdley, 3 Vern. 192. 85 ; S.C. 11 N. E. Rep. 625 ; 7 ' Pierson v. Shore, 1 Atk. 480. Cent. Rep. 293. In England purchase money paid ' Gibbs V. Ougier, 12 Ves. 413 ; s.c. into court for land of which an 8 Rev. Rep. 348. infant is seized in fee, remains * Evans v. Kingsberry, 3 Rand. real estate under Land Clauses fVa.) 130 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. Act, 1845, J 69. 779. Kelland v. Fulford, L. R. 6 Ch. 8 Evans v. Kingsberry, 3 Rand. Div. 411 ; s.c. 35 W. R. 506. (Va ) 130 : s.c. 14 Am. Dec. * Freeman v. Dawson, 110 U. S. 779. 364 ; bk. 38 L. ed. 141. * Awdley v. Awdley, 2 Vern. 193. See : Bract. 1. 3, f. 37a, par. 1 ; 6 Tullit V. TuUit, Ambl. 370 ; s.c. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 46a. Dick. 333 ; ° Williams on Real Property, 8. Pierson v. Shore, 1 Atk. 480. 78 AIR, LIGHT, AND MANUEE. [Book I. courts have in some instances construed the terms ' ' land " and "realty "to include them, ^ and some of the states hare by statute made them real estate.^ Sec. 83. Light and air.— An easement of light and air is an incorporeal hereditament,^ and like all other ease- ments upon or in land is an interest in lands, but not real property.* Sec. 83. Manure — Real estate when.— The general rule is that manure made upon a farm in the ordinary course of husbandry, from consumption of the farm produce, consisting of the collection from the stables and barnyard, or of composts formed by an admixture of these with soil and other substances, by usage, practice, and general un- derstanding, are so attached to and connected with the realty as. to be a part of it ; ^ and in the absence of an ex- press stipulation to the contrary, passes with a con- veyance of the land as appurtenant.® This doctrine rests upon the ground that it is for the interest of good hus- bandry, and the encouraging of agriculture, that manure produced upon a farm, in the common course of hus- bandry, should be consumed upon it, and that the farm should not be impoverished by the removal therefrom of the material necessary for its enrichment and the growth 1 See : Dawson v. Daniel, 2 Flipp. Sawyer v. Twiss, 36 N. H. 345 • C. C. 301, 317, 318. Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. ' See : Cincmnati College v. Yeat- (N. Y.) 169 ; man, 30 Ohio St. 276 ; Stone v. Proctor, 2 D. Chip. (Vt.) Alexander v. MiUer, 7 Heisk. 118. (Tenn.) 65. « Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass. 92 ; 8 See : Ante, § 78. Fay v. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13 * Ray u Sweeney, 14 Bush (Ky.)l ; Gray) 53; s.c. 74 Am. Dec. S.C. 29 Am. Rep. 388, 391. 619. See : Post, chapters on " Ease- See : Haslem v. Lockwood, 37 ments and Servitudes." Conn. 500 ; s.c. 9 Am Ren ' Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31 350 ; Pick.)367;s.c. 32Am. Dec.269. Chase u Wingate, 68 Me. 204- See : Parson v. Camp, 11 Conn. s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 36 ; - 525 ; HUl v. De Rochemont, 48 N. H Vehue v. Moser, 76 Me. 469 ; s.c. 88 ; 2 Cent. L. J. 93 ; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H: Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 503 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ; 232 ; Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ; (N. Y.) 636 ; s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611 ; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N Y. Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558 ; 142. Conner v. Coffin, 27 N. H. 538 ; Chap. III. § 84.] MADE IN NON- AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS. 79 of the succeeding crops. ^ This rule holds true no matter what state and condition the manure may be in ; whether scattered about the barnyard and cow-lot,^ or piled up in heaps in the barnyard or in the fields where it is to ba used as dressing ; ^ or on the land where dropped ; * and whether consisting of the collection from the stables and the barnyard, or of composts formed by the admixture of these with the soil and other substances.^ The rule applies alike between vendor and vendee,® between mortgagor and mortgagee,^ and between landlord and tenant.^ Sec. 84. Same — Where made in other than agricultural ' Haslem v. Lockwood, 37 Conn. 500 ; S.C. 9 Am. Rep. 350 ; Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 304 ; s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 36 ; Fay V. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13 Gray) 53 ; s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 619. 2 Parson v. Camp, 11 Conn. 030. 8 Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 204; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 36 ; Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. 222 ; Strong V. Doyle, 110 Mass. 93 ; Fay V. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13 Gray) 53; Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 269; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393, 396; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 HiU (N. Y.) 142. * See : Hill v. De Rochemont, 48 N. H. 87 ; French v. Freeman, 43 Vt. 93. s Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 269. « Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 269; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503 ; s.c. 14 Ain. Dec. 393 ; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 142. ' Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 204 ; s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 36. ' Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 530 ; Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 204; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 36 ; Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. 232 ; Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ; s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611; Fay V. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13 Gi-ay) 55 ; s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 619 ; Lewis V. Lyman, 39 Mass. (3 Pick.) 437; s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 019; Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31 Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 269 • Perry v. Carr, 44 N. H. 118 ; Yv'adley v. Janvln, 41 N. H. 519 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 780 ; Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558 ; Sawyer v. Twiss, 26 N. H. 840 ; Kitti-edge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 003; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 143; Middlebrook r. Corwin, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 169 ; Lewis r. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 263 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550 ; Browni'. Crump, 3 Swan (Tenn.) 531; Wetherbee v. Ellison, 19 Vt. 379; Stone V. Proctor, 2 D. Chip (Vt.) 103; Onslow V. , 16 Ves. 173 ; Pulteney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 147 ; s.c. 5 Id. 260, 261. lassell V. Eeed stiU good law. — The case of Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. 233, is supposed to be impaired by the subsequent one of Staples V. Emery, 7 Me. 201, but this case does not profess to call in question the correct- ness of the decision in the former one ; on the contrary the court affirm it, distinguish- ing the principle. 80 MADE ON NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS. [Book L purstiits.— This rule, however, apphes only to manures made on the premises in the usual course of husbandry. Hence, where a lease is general in its terms, and says nothing of the mode in which the tenant is to use the demised premises, and he constructs thereon a corral for cattle which he feeds with supplies procured from sources foreign to the land, the manure produced thereby will be regarded as his personal property,-' and he or his assignee may, during his term, remove all such manure that is not co-mingled with the soil,^ provided reasonable care and skill are used in removing it from the land, so as to prevent injury thereto.^ But the fact that a tenant furnishes to his live-stock some hay and some grain not raised upon the premises, will not give him any title to the manure made, especially if he does not specify how much of either he supplied, and what proportion they bore to the whole amount of hay, grain, and straw supplied.^ Sec. 85. Same— Made on non-agricultural lands.— The gen- eral rule does not apply to manure made in a livery stable,^ or in any manner not connected with agricult- ure, or not made in the ordinary course of husbandry.^ Where the lands are not agricultural the reason for the » Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ; Corey v. Bishop, 48 N. H. 146 ; s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611 ; Carroll v. Newton, 17 How. (N. Corey v. Bishop, 48 N. H. 146. Y.) Pr. 189. Manure made raising hogs.^-The May remove soil with manure. — same is true where the manure Some of the cases hold that the is made in the business of rais- tenant may remove the soil ing hogs, not fed upon the pro- that becomes mixed with the ducts of the land ; and the manure in the process of heap- nature of the manure is not ing it up. changed from personalty to See : Snow v. Perkins, 68 Me. realty by being mixed with 493 ; s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 333 ; loam drawn from other lands. Smith wick v. Ellison, 2 Ired. (N. Snow V. Perkins, 68 Me. 493; C.) L. 336; s.c. 38 Am. Deo. s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 333. 697. = Higgon V. Mortuner, 6 Car. & P. * Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. S67 ; 616 ; s.c. 25 Eng. C. L. 604. s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550. In Norti Carolina, where manure ^ Dowels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21 is declared to be personal prop- Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. erty and not real estate, it is 269. held that soil mixed with the * Snow v. Perkins, 60 N. H. 498 ; manure, in the operation of s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 333; heaping it up, may be removed Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558 ; therewith. Needham v. Allison, 24 N. H. Smithwick v. Ellison, 2 Ired. (N. 355 ; C.)L. 326; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 697. Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 267; * Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550. s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611 ,■ Chap. III. §§86, 87.] AGREEMENT RESPECTING MANURE. 81 rule ceases, and the rule itself does not apply. Thus where a teamster owning a small house and stable, with a small yard, sold them, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the manure made by the team and stored in the cellar was personal property and did not pass with the land.^ Where manure is dropped in the streets the fee to which is in the corporation, or on other lands the fee to which is in the public, it will belong to the first taker. ^ Sec. 86. Same — Agreement of parties respecting. — While the general rule set out is applied in whatever situation or condition manure may be found before it is finally ex- pended upon the soil, it is, until such application to the soil, an incident of the real estate of such peculiar char- acter that, while it remains consecutively annexed, it will be personal property if the parties interested agree to so treat it.^ Thus, it has been held that a verbal sale of manure will constitute a severance and passes the title to it as personal property, and that a subsequent conveyance of the farm will not carry such manure as appurtenant to the premises, or divest the' title of the purchaser to the same.* It seems that where manure is so made as to be, or by agreement is, the personal property of an outgoing tenant, it does not necessarily become real estate by being left upon the premises after the expiration of the tenancy.^ Sec. 87. Same— New Jersey and North Carolina doctrine.— The general rule, that manure made upon a farm in the course of husbandry is a part of the real estate, does not prevail in New Jersey and North Carolina, where it is regarded as personal property, and on the sale of the land does not pass therewith as incident to or part of it.* ■ Proptor V. Gilson, 49 N. H. 63. " Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass 93 ; » Haslem v. Lockwood, 87 Conn. French v. Freeman, 43 Vt. 93. 500 • s c. 9 Am. Rep. 350. "■ Fletcher v. Herrmg, 113 Mass. = Strong V. Doyle, 110 Mass. 93. 383. ^ , ^ oq ivr t See- Ford «. Cobb, 30 N. Y. « Ruokman v. Cutwater, 38 N. J. 344. L. (4Dutcli.)581. Noble'-y. Sylvester, 43 Vt. 146. 6 82 MARKET STALLS. [Book L In the absence of a contract or a custom to the contrary, such manure may be removed or sold by an outgoing tenant, where made by him on the premises, because it is regarded as his personal estate.^ The rule is the same in New Brunswick. Sec. 88. Same— English rule.— Under the English rule, it seems that, by the cusfom of the country, the tenant is entitled to claim compensation for the manure made during his occupancy and as yet unappropriated to the soil.^ Sec. 89. Market stalls.— The stalls in a public market, like the pews in a church, do not carry with them abso- lute property, but a qualified right only. The right acquired is in the nature of an easement in, not a title to, a freehold in the land ; and such right or easement is limited in duration to the existence of the market, and is to be understood as acquired subject to such changes and modifications in the market during its existence as the public needs may require. The purchase of such stalls confers an exclusive right ta occupy them, with their appendages, for the purposes of the market, and none other. If the owner be disturbed in the possession of the stalls, at common law, he may maintain case or trespass, according to the nature and circumstance of the injury, against the wrong-doer. But he cannot convert them to any other use than that for which they were sold ; and in the use of them he is required to conform to the regulations of the market, as prescribed by the ordinances of the city. This is by analogy to the prin- ciples applied in respect to the rights of pew-holders,^ and it is thought that the analogy between those rights and the right acquired in market stalls is sufficiently exact to make the principlo applicable in the one case ' Smithwick v. Ellison, 2 Ired. (N. See: Sanders v. EllinKton, 77 N. C.) L. 336 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. C. 255. " 697. ' See : Eoberts v. Baker, 1 Crompt. Citing : Eoberts v. Baker, 1 & M. 808. Crompt. & M. 808 ; ^ See: Ante, 88 40, 41. Beaty v. Gibbons, 16 East 116. Chap. III. § 90.] MINES AND MINERALS. 83 equally applicable in the other. ^ And market stalls, like church pews, in the absence of statutes controlling, partake of the nature of realty, although the ownership is that of an exclusive easement for special purposes only.^ Sec. 90. Mines and minerals.— It is a general maxim of the common law that he who owns the soil owns all above and beneath the surface, cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum, et al infra. ^ He owns not only what is growing upon or affixed to the soil, as trees, and the like, but also all mines and minerals beneath the sur- face in a direct line to the center of the earth, includ- ing all mines or veins of metal,* or minerals,^ coal, ' Jackson v. Roonesville, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 137; Howard v. First Parish in North Bridgewater, 34 Mass. (7 Pick.) 138; Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 103; s.o. 11 Am. Dec. 151; Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159; Shaw V. Beveridge, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 36; Hinde v. Chorlton, L. R. 3 C. P. 104. « Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Ithaca v. Bigelow, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 28. See: Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 102 ; Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 439; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159; Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249. ' Kerr's " Achudicated Words, Phrases, and Applied Maxims." See: Canfield v. Ford, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 336, 338; Rowan «. Kelsey, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 484, 489; Dows V. Congdon, 16 How. (N. Y.)Pr. 571,573; Mahone v. Brown, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 361, 263; s.o. 38 Am. Dec. 461; Patterson v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. (Pa.), 36 W. N. C. 337. ' A gold mine is real estite and can be transferred only by an in- strument in writing. Melton V. Lambard, 51 Cal. 358. 6 An elaborate inquiry into the va- rious senses in which the word ' ' mineral " may be used was made by Vice-Chancellor Kin- dersly in DarviQ v. Roper, 3 Drew, 394. Tlie word " metals " used tefore " minerals " indicates that the latter word is to be given its full meaning. The word " minerals," though more frequently applied to sub- stances containing metal, in its E roper sense includes all fossil odies or matter dug out of mines. Rosse V. Waimman, 14 Mees. & W. 859. Gas, oil, and water are to be clas- sified as minerals. Westmoreland & Cambria Nat- ural Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa. St. 235; s.c. 18 Atl. R. 734; 5 L. R. A. 731. See: 1 Ball. Ann. L. of R. P., §317. Gold and sand are not included. Attorney-General v. Mylchrest, 40 L. T. N. S. 767. See: 9 Cent. L. J. 321. Compare: Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; s.c. 79 Am. Deo. 133. Petroleum is a species of mineral. Keir v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 363. Stones dug from a quarry are also. Michlethwait v. Winter, 6 Ex. 644; B.C. 30 L. J. Ex. 313. 84 OWNER ENTITLED TO MINERALS. [Book I. china clay or kaolin,^ freestone,^ gas,^ gold/ iron,^ oil,* paint-stone/ quarry-stone,^ silver,^ and water, ^^ and all fossil and water formations. ^^ The owner of the freehold is, prima facie, entitled to all the minerals and strata of coal, clay, ore, lime, marble, and the like, not as a separate estate, but as a part of the fee and inheritance, and they will all pass by descent, or by conveyance, without special designation,^ in the absence of a sever- ance of the mine, and a distinct estate and interest created in them by grant or reservation.^^ But a grant or reservation of "mines and minerals " does not embrace everything in the mineral kingdom, as distinguished ' Hext V. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 699; s.c. 36 L/ T. N. S. 503; 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 574; 7 Alb. L. J. 60. 'BeUu Wilson, L.R. 1 Oh. App. ,303; s.c. 14 L. T. N. S. 115. ' Gas is a mineral, and while in situ is part of the land. But while a mineral, gas has peculiar attributes, and may be classed with water and oil— if the an- alogy be not too fantiiful — as fercB naturae. Their furtive and wandering existence with- in the Umits of a particular tract is uncertain. They belong to the owner of the land, and are a part of it, so long as they are on or in it, and are under his control ; but when they . escape and go on other land, or come imder another's control, ' the title of the f prmer owner is gone. See: Westmorelgfnd & Cambria Natural Gas Co. v. DeWitt, 130 Pa. St. 335; /s.c. 18 Atl. Rep. 724; 5 L. R. A. 731; 1 Ball. Ann. L. of R. P. 1893, § 317. Brown v. Vaiidergrift, 80 Pa. St. 147, 148. * Mocre v. Smaw, 17 Gal. 199; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 133. Compare : Attorney-General v. .-Mylchrest, 4 L. T. N. S. 767; S.C. 9 Cent. L. J. 331. ' Lee V. Baumgardener, 86 Va. 315; s.,c. 10 S. E. Rep. 3; 1 Ball. Ann. L.of R. P. 1893, 415, §314. « Ki^u. Peterson, 41Pa. St. 347,363. Oil, like .water,, islnot,. the subject of property except while in actual occupancy. Dark v. Johnson, 55 Pa. St. 164; s.c. 93 Am. Deo. 733. Same — Part of land. — But is a part of the land while in situ. Westmoreland & Canabria Nat- ural Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa. St. 235; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep. 734; 5 L. R. A. 731; Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. St. 147, 148. ■" Paint-stone. — Tlie term " mines and minerals " in a grant will pass paint-stone obtained by the ordinary means of mining, and found below the surface of the soil in strata distinct from the ordinary earth. Hartwell v. Camman, 10 N. J. Eq. (2 Stockt.) 138; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 448. » Michlethwait v. Winter, 6 Ex. Ch. 313; s.c. 30 L. J. Ex. 313. ' Moore V. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 123. '" Water is to be classified as a min- ei-al. Westmoreland & Cambria Nat- ural Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa. St. 335; S.C. 18 Atl. Rep. 734; 5 L. R. A. 731; 1 Ball. Ann. L. of R. P. 1892, § 317. " Bourne v. Taylor, 10 East 189, 305; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 367, 279; Townley v. Gibson, 3 T. R. 705; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 600; Grey v. Northumberland, 17 Ves. 382. See: Eardley v. GranviUe, 3 Ch. Div. 836; s.c. 4 L. J. Ch. 669; 34 L. T. 609. " Adams v. The Briggs Iron Co., 61 . .Mass..(7Pusli.JM,.§Q.6.. ^ : '* Riddle v. Brown, 30 Ala. 413; s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 203. Chap. in. §§ 91, 92.] COMMON LAW DOCTRINE. §5 from all other things that belong to the vegetable and animal kingdom, nor is confined to any of the divisions into which chemists separate the minerals. ^ All mines and minerals pass with the land unless expressly reserved in the grant. ^ Sec. 91. Same— Common-law doctrine.— In the laws of England it has always been regarded as a fundamental principle that the king, by his prerogative, is entitled to all mines of gold and silver within the realm, whether they be in the lands of the king or of the subjects, and he has a right to dig and carry away these ores, with such incidents thereto as are necessary for the getting of the ore.^ This doctrine had its origin in the king's duty to defend the realm, and to coin and furnish the currency required for this purpose, and for the use of trade and commerce. To be enabled to do this the right to the mines of gold and silver was indispensably necessary.* But a mine royal, either of base metal, containing gold and silver, or of pure gold and silver only, may be severed from the crown by grant of the king, and conveyed to another by apt and precise words. '^ Such right will not pass under a grant of land from the crown, however, unless there was an intention that it should pass, and this intention is expressed by apt and precise words. ^ Sec. 93. Same— Boyal charters.- By most of the royal charters under which this country was settled, the grant of the soil expressly includes "all mines," as well as every other thing included in or borne in or upon it ; re- serving as rent only, in the reddendum, one-fifth part of all the gold and silver ore, to be delivered at the pit's mouth, free of charge. Such were the charters of Con- » Hartwell v. Camman, 10 N. J. 2 Co. Inst. 577, 578; Eq. (2 Stockt.) 128; s.c. 64 Am. 3 Kent. Com. (IStli ed.) 378, note. Dec 448 * Queen v. Northumberland, 1 « See: Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; Plowd. 310, 315-316; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 123. 1 Bl. Com. 294. » See: Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; = Queen v. Northumberland, 1 S.C. 79 Am. Dec. 123, 132-138; Plowd. 310. Lyddall v. Weston, 3 Atk. 19; « Woolley v. Attorney-General of Queen v. Northumberland, 1 Victoria, 36 L. T. Eep. (N. S.) Plowd. 310; 121. 2 Bl. Com. 294, 395; 86 NEW YORK DOCTRINE. [Book J. necticTit, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Penn- sylvania, and Virginia. In the charter of North Carolina one-fourth was thus reserved ; and in that of Massa- chusetts one-fifth of the precious stones was also included. By the charter of Charles II. to the Duke of York, March 12, 1663, granting the territory extending from Nova Scotia to Delaware Bay, all the mines were ex- pressly granted without any reservation ; and for this reason a reservation is expressly found in the statutes of New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. It being con- ceded and declared ^ that a mine royal may by the king's grant be severed from the crown and granted to a private party, it follows that upon the separation of these states from Great Britain, the former did not succeed to the prerogative right to gold and silver mines in these states where the mines were included in the terms of the char- ters. Whether the states could dem.and the fifth or fourth parts reserved as rent as the assignees of the crown at law, or by force of the treaty of peace ; and whether the federal government of the United States may claim the same proportion as the assignee of the states, under the constitution, or the whole people by their own prerogative, on the original grounds as above set forth, are questions that have been raised,^ but avail naught to discuss here. Sec. 93. Same— New York doctrine.— The doctrine of royal mines is adopted in New York. The state's right as sovereign, to the gold and silver mines in the common- wealth was asserted at an early date,^ and re-asserted by legislative act as late as 1828 ;* and all letters patent issued by the state have contained an exception and res- ervation to the people of the state of all gold and silver mines on the land conveyed.^ But by statute the dis- coverers of such mines, as a reward for their discoveries, ' Case of Mines, 1 Plowd. 336. ^ See : N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. I., c. 9, ' See : State of Georgia v. Canatoo, tit. 11 ; 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (Sth National Intelligencer, Goto- ed.) |817 ; 3 Rev. Stat. Codes & ber34, 1843; L., p. 1983. 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 378, note. » See : 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (Sth ed.) » Stat. Feb. 6, 1789 ; Sess. L. 13, o. 1618, § 5 ; 2 Rev. Stat. Codes & 18. L. p. 1781, § 5. Chap. III. §§ 94, 95, 96.] , CALIFORNIA DOCTRINE. 87 are permitted to enjoy their produce free from any com- pensation to the state for the period of twenty-one years. ^ Sec. 94. Same— Pennsylvania doctrine.— The royal char- ter granted to William Penn reserved as rent one-fifth of the precious metals found in the land granted, and the patents granted by Penn reserved two-fifths. It is only since the statute of 1843 that the patents granted by the state of Pennsylvania pass the entire estate of the commonwealth.^ Sec. 95. Same— Georgia doctrine.— In an early Georgia case it was held that the right and title to land includes the right to all the minerals therein, unless they were separated from the land by positive grant or exception ; and that if the state made a grant of public lands to an individual without excepting the mines and minerals, such mines and minerals pass to the grantee as part and parcel of the land granted.^ Sec. 96. Same— California doctrine.-In Calif ornia it was formerly held that the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, was the sole owner of the gold and silver mines found in the public lands within its limits, and declared that similar mines found in the lands of private citizens also belonged to the state government by the same right, as- suming that the several states of the Union, in virtue of their respective sovereignties, were entitled to the jura regalia which, pertained to the king at common law.* But this doctrine has been overruled, Chief Justice Field remarking in Moore v. Smaw^ that it is in the assumption as to the jura regalia that the error of the doctrine consists. After much discussion it seems to have been finally settled in California that the owner- ship of precious metals, found in private or public lands in that state, is incident to the ownership of the ' ' 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (8th ed.), p. 1818. See : 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 878, 84:2 Rev. Stat. Codes & L., p. note b. 1983, g 4. " Hicks v. Bell, 3 Cal. 219. 'See- 2'Bouv. L. Die. (15th ed.) See: Stoakes v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 36. 336. 5 17 Cal. 119 ; s.c. 79 Am. Deo. 128, ' State V. Canatoo, National Intel- 133. ligencer, October 24, 1843. CONVEYANCE OF MINERALS. [Book I. soil, and that the metals do not belong to the govern- ment as an incident of its sovereignty.^ Sec. 91. Same — Severance and conveyance. — Metals and minerals in place are land,^ and may be conveyed by deed distinct from the right to the surface.^ They are incor- poreal hereditaments distinct from the surface/ and pass by apt words in a deed, although not susceptible of livery of seisin, delivery and registry of the deed being substituted therefor,^ Thus one person may own the surface, and another may be entitled, by conveyance, to the iron, another to the limestone, and another still to a stratum of coal.® Where so severed mines and minerals are still regarded as real estate,' and are governed by ' Ah Hee v. Crippen, 19 Cal. 491. See: Ah Lew v. Choate, 34 Cal. 562; Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 123, 193; Merced. Mining Co. v. Boggs, 14 Cal. 279; s.c. 70 U. S. (3 Wall.) 304; bk. 18 L. ed. 245; United States v. CastiEero, 67 U. S. (2 Black.) 1; bk. 17 L. ed. 360; Fremont v. The United States, 58 U. S. (17 How.) 442; bk. 15 L. ed. 241; United States v. Parrott, 1 McA. C. C. 271. " Knight V. Indiana Coal & Iron Co., 47 Ind. 105; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 692, 696 ; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 475 ; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 760. ' Stewart v. Chadwick, 8 Iowa (8 Clarke) 463 ; Green v. Putnam, 62 Mass. (8 Cush.) 21 ; Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 361 ; Canfieldu. Ford, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 336; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 475 ; B.C. 73 Am. Deo. 760 ; Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W. 60; Stoughton V. Leigli, 1 Taunt. 402. See : Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Neel, 54 Pa. St. 9; Armstrong •;;. CaldweU, 53 Pa. St. 284; Brown V. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495 • Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 357 ; Caldwell v. Copeland, 37 Pa. St. 427 ; s.c. 78 Am. Deo. 406 ; Harlan ■;;. Lehigh Coal Co., 35 Pa. St. 387. ■* Lee V. Baumgardener, 86 Va. 315 ; s.c. 1 Ball. Ann. L. of R. P. 415. See : KJnight v. Indiana Coal & Iron Co., 47 Ind. 105; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 692, 696 ; Whitaker v. Brown, 46 Pa. St. 197; Harlan v. Lehigh Coal Co., 35 Pa. St. 287 ; Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 475; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 760; Barnes v. Mawson, 1 M. & S. 77. ^ CaldweU v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. 475 ; s.c. 72 Am. Deo. 760. See : Knight v. Indiana Coal & Iron Co., 47 Ind. 110; s.c. 17 Am. Rgp. 693 ; Ilartwell v. Camman, 10 N. J. Eq. (2 Stockt.)138 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 448 ; Johnstown Iron Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 32 Pa. St. 241, 246 ; Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 77 U. S. (10 WaU.) 339, 366 ; bk. 19 L. ed. 955; French v. Brewer, 3 Wall. , Jr. , C. C. 346 ; ' Knight V. Indiana Coal & Iron Co., 47 Ind. 175; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 692, 696. ' Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367. Chap. HI. § 98.] RESERVATION ON CONVEYANCE. 89 the same laws that are applied to surface real estate.^ Thus they are capable of being held, conveyed by deed, transferred by will or inheritance, ^ and are subjected to dower interest ^ and partition ; * and all other rules regulating title to real estate, so far as they are applicable, will apply thereto.^ Where the mines and minerals have been separated from the surface by conveyance of such surface to one person and of the minerals to another, incident to the ownership of such mines and minerals is the double duty of fur- nishing support to the surface® and of keeping the entrance to the mine so guarded or protected as not to imperil the safety of the animals lawfully upon the surface.'^ Sec. 98. Same — Reservation of mineral ores. — The owner of the fee may grant the land, excepting and reserving the mines and minerals to himself and his heirs, ^ and they may pass by his deed to a third person,^ but they will not pass as appurtenant to other land.-'" Such a transfer of the surface and of all profit that can be obtained from cultivating it, or building on it, or otherwise using it,^^ with a reservation in the same conveyance to the grantor of the minerals, an important part of the general estate, ' See : Riddle v. Driver, 12 Ala.590 ; ' See : Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., Trustees of HawesviUe v. Hawes, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367. 6 Bush (Ky.) 232 ; « See : Post, § 99. Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 328. ' WiUiams v. Groucott, 4 Best & S. 2 See : Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59 ; 149 ; s.c. IIG Eng. C. L. 149. Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61 'Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367 ; Mass. (7 Cush.) 301 ; Caldwell V. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. Benson v. Miners' Bank, 20 P;.. 475 ; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 760. St. 370. ' Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 493 ; " Lee v. Baumgardener, 86 Va. 315 ; Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61 s.c. K b. E. Rep. "; 1 Ball. Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367 ; Ann. L. of F. P. 1892, 415. Billings V. Taylor, 27 Mass. (10 >» Lebtnard -y. White, 7 Mass. 6 ; s.c. Pick.) 460 ; s.c. 20 Am. Deo. 5 Am. Dec. 19 ; 533 ; Jackson v, Hathaway, 15 John. Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) (N. Y.] 447 • s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 460 ; . 263 ; Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. Harris v. Llliot, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.) 402. 25 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 333 ; See : Post, Chapters on " Dower." 1 Co. Litfc. (19th ed.) 131, 126. • Dall V. Confidence Silver Mining " Hext v. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 700 ; Co., 3 Nev. 531 ; s.c. 93 Am. s.c. 3 Moak'sEng. Rep. 574. Dec. 419. 90 EIGHTS ON RESERVATION. [Book I. if the reserve is effectual and still operative, there is imposed upon the estate conveyed a serious servitude ; though it, in its turn, becomes to a certain extent dominant over the estate reserved.^ Such a reservation, in a deed of land, of the minerals therein, involves the right to penetrate the surface for the minerals, and to use such means in mining and removing the same as are neces- sary ; ^ hut the means used must be necessary as distin- guished from convenient or reasonable, and the surface owner is entitled to subjacent support for the soil in its natural state. ^ Some of the cases go so far as to hold that the defendant's right rising from such a reservation covers the whole portion conveyed, and that he cannot be restrained from removing, within the boundaries described, such material, even though it be required for necessary surface support ; * but this is not the prevailing doctrine. Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co., 55 N. Y. 538 ; s.o. 14 Am. Rep. 323, 337 ; See : Caledonian Ey. Co. v. Sprot, 3 Macq. Soot. App. Cas. 449. Construction of reservation in grant of mines and minerals. — It is said, in the case of Marvin V. Brewster Iron Co., supra, that a reserve of minerals and mining ri;;:;hts is construed as in an actual grant thereof. It differs not, whether the right to mine is by an exception from a deed of the surface, or by a grant of the mine by the owner of the whole estate, therein reserving to himself the surface. Dand v. Kingscote, 6 M. & W. 174; Williams v. BagnaU, 15 W. R. 373; Sliep. Touch. 100. See : "V/ickham v. Hawker, 7 M. & W. 78 ; and comment there- on in Proud v. Bates, 37 L. J. Ch. 406; s.c. 5 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 171-174. A reservation of mineral and min- ing rights from a grant of the estate, followed by a grant to another of all that which was first reserved, vests in the sec- ond grantee an estate as broad as if the entire estate had been granted to him, with a reserva- tion of the surface. Arnold v. Stevens, 41 Mass. (34 Pick.) 106; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. . 305. " Marvin v. Brewster Iron Co. , 55 N. Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am. Rep. 333 ■ Hext 'v. Gill, L. E. 7 Ch. App. 700 ; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 574; Goold V. Great Western Coal Co., 3 DeG. J. & S. 600 ; s.c. 13 L. T. 843 ; 13 L. T. 109 ; Cardington v. Armitage, 2 Barn. & C. 179 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 93. See : Hodgson v. Held, 7 East 613 ; s.c. 3 Smith, 538 ; 8 Rev. Rep. 701. * Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co.,55N. Y. 538; s.c. 14 Am. Rep. 338. See : Post, § 99. ^ Byokman v. Gills, 57 N. Y. 68 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 464. See : Buccleuch v. Wakefield, L. R. 4 H. L. 377 ; Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. Cas. 348 ; Eadon v. Jeffcock, 43 L. J. Rep. (N. S.) Ex. Ch. 39. Chap. HI. § 99.] RIGHT TO SURFACE SUPPORT. 91 Sec. 99. Same — Stirftice support.— It is the general rule that where the owner of the whole fee severs the sur- face by selling the same and retaining the minerals, or by selling the minerals and retaining the surface, without restraint or restriction in the conveyance or contract, the owner of the surface is, ex jure nature,'^ entitled to sup- port, and the subterranean or mining property is subser- vient to the surface to the extent of sufficient support to sustain the latter. ^ The upper and under ground estates ' General presumption. — Vice-Chan- ceUor Mauns, in the cane of Wakefield v. The Duke of Buc- cleuch, 36 L. J. Rep. (N. S.) Ch. 763, clearly held that the general presumption existed. He says, at page 775 : " Upon principle, and apart from au- thority, I should say that the surface, having at aU times been enjoyed by man, must be protected at the expense of the mines, which have never been so enjoyed ; that is, that the mines, in my opinion, must be regarded as a tenement sub- servient to the surface." But this view was certainly not ac- quiesced in by the Lord Chan- ceEor, or Lord Chelmsford, who gave judgment in the same case on appeal to the House of Lords. See : 39 Law J.Rep.(N.S.)Ch.441. Same — Lord Hartley's comments. — After referring to the Vice- Chancellor's opinion, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatheelt) says (37 L. J. Rep. p. 401) : "That certainly is a general proposition which, I confess, does not help one much to a solution of the case. The rights of the parties, I apprehend, must be determined according to what we find in the instru- ments creating those rights, or inthecustoms, if there be any, which may be proved in sup- port of those rights. I appre- hend that those rights cannot be rested upon any such ab- stract proposition as that." Same — Lord Chelmsford's comments. — Lord Chelmsford says, at page 454: "It is difficult to imagine a case in which this principle can be thus abstract- ly applied. The surface of the land and all beneath it must originally have been the prop- erty of one and the same per- son. He was, of course, at hberty to grant the surface, re- serving the minerals ; or grant the minerals only, reserving the surface. In eitlier case the grant might be made upon con- ditions which would be proved by the grant itself, or estab- lished by evidence of the in- variable exercise of the respect- ive rights of the parties. If no proof could be given of the mode in which each party was to enjoy his property, the owner of the surface might prevent the owner of the mines from working so as to take away the suppoi't from the sur- face, and the owner of the mines would be entitled to all the minerals which he could obtain by ordinary and proper working without obstruction by the owner of the surface. The only principle which could be applied in the case last sup- posed is contained in the maxim sic iiiere tuo ut alienwm non Icedan." 2 Carlin v. Chappel, 101 Pa. St. 348 ; s.c. 47 Am. Rep. 722. See : Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 243 ; Yandes v. Wright, 6G Ind. 319 ; s.c. 32 Am. Rep. 109 ; Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429 ; s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 385, 387 ; Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. St. 243 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 55 ; Rehm v. Chadwick (Pa.), 6 Pitts. L. J. N. S. 98 ; Smart v. Morton, 5 El. & Bl. 30 ; s.c. 36 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 260; 85 Eng. C. L. 30 ; 92 BIGHTS OF GRANTEE OF MINERALS. [Book I. being several, they are governed by the same maxim which limits the use of property otherwise situated, sic utere tuo ut alienum non Isedas.^ Sec. 100. Same — Same — Rights of grantee.— It is held in a number of well-considered cases that the grantee of the minerals will be entitled only to such of the minerals granted as he can remove without injury to the surface.^ In such a case the owner of the mineral strata must so occupy and use his property as not to interfere with the superincumbent soil in its natural state, ^ or with such buildings as are upon it at the time of the purchase ; but the owner of the surface will not be permitted to impose upon it additional burdens to be supported by the mine- owner.* Pinnlngton v. Galland, 9 Ex. Oh. 1 ; Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. Gas. 348 ; s.o. 30 L. J. Rep. (N. S.)Q. B.49; Glasgow (Eaii) v. Hnrlet Aim. Co., 3 H. L. Cas. 25 ; s.o. 8 Eng. L & Eq. 13 ; The Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Sprot, 2 Macq. 449 ; Harris v, Ryding, 5 Mees. & W. 60 ; B.C. 8 L. J. Rep. (N. S.)Ex. 18; Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. 743 ; S.C. 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 351 ; Smith V. Darby, L. R. 72 B. 716 ; s.o. 42 L. J. Q. B. 140 ; 26 L. T. 763 ; 20 W. R. 982 ; 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 381 ; Milton V. Granville, 13 L. J. Rep. (N. S.) Q. B. 193 ; s.o. 5 Q. B. 701. ' Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 439 ; B.C. 5 Am. Rep. 385, 388. See : Kerr's" Adjudicated Words, Phrases and Applied Max- ims." ' Yandes v. Wright, 66 Ind. 319 ; S.C. 32 Am. Rep. 109 ; Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co.. 55 N. Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am. Rep. 323 ; Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St. 81, 93 ; Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. St. 343 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 55 ; Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429 ; s.o. 5 Am. Rep. 385 ; Wakefield v. Buccleuch, L. R. 4 Eq. Cas. 613 ; Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 Kay & J. 695 ; Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees & W. 60. Crrantee not liable for loss of springs, — But the grantee of min- erals beneath the surface is not liable to the owner of the surface for the loss of springs occasioned by the ordinary working of the mine. Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St. 81 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 93. ' Wilms V. Jess, 94 111. 464 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 343, 244 ; Zinc Co. V. Franklinite Co., 13 N. J. Eq. (3 Beas.)332, 343; Ryckman v. Gillis, 57 N. Y. 68 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 464 ; Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St. 81; Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. St. 243, 251 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 55 ; Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429 ; s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 385 ; Smart v Morton, 5 El. & Bl. 30 ; s.c. 36 L. J. (N. S.)Q. B. 260 ; 85 Eng. C. L. 30 ; Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W= 60; Humphries v. Brofden, 12 Q. B. 743; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 241. ^ Zinc Co. V. Franklinite Co., 13 N. J. Eq. (3 Beas.) 322 ; Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co.,55N. Y. 538; s. c. 14 Am. Rep. 323,-334 ; Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige' Ch. (N. Y-.)T69; Chap. in. §§ 101, 102.] EESERVATION OF MINERALS. 93 Sec. 101. Same — Same — Where owner retains surface, — Where the owner of the fee grants the surface and retains the minerals the construction is the same as where he grants the minerals and retains the surface/ except that the instrument by which the conveyance is made will be more strictly construed against the grantor than against the grantee.^ Sec. 103. Same — Same — Where owner grants surface and retains minerals.— While it is true that when the grantor of the surface reserves the mines beneath it, he by im- plication reserves everything that is necessary for work- ing them,^ and has an easement to do such acts as are reasonably necessary to get out the minerals and remove them from the mine ; * yet a mere reservation of the miineral as such, or a reservation with the right of min- ing, must always respect surface right of support, and will not, standing alone, permit the surface to be Grubb V. Bayard, 2 WaU Jr. C. C. 81; Humphries v. Brogden, 13 Ad. & E. (N. S.) 739 ; s.o. 64 Eng. C. L. 738 ; Wilkinson v. Proud, 11 Mees. & W. 83. Compare ; Wilms v. Jess, 95 111. 464; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 343. > Dand v. Kingscote, 6 Mees. & W. 174; Shep. Touch. 100. See : Wickhani v. Hawker, 7 Mees. & W. 78 ; Proud V. Bates, 37 L. J. Ch. 406 ; s.o. 13 L. T. 61 ; 5 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 171. ' Marvin i: Brewster Iron Mining Co., 55 N. Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am. Rep. 323, 828. Construction — There will te retained in the grantor all that which was the clear' meaning and intention of the parties to re- serve from the conveyance. Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co;, 55 N.Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am. Rep. 333, 328; H!arris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W. ;-60,. 70. . ' Catdiean V. Armitage, 3 Bam. & 'h t^ is-c. ft Eng. C. L. 93. . ' See :■ 'GiJold , «r C<$re&i ^, Western Deep Coal Co., 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 843; Proud V. Bates, 87 L. Ch. 416 ; s.c. 13 L. T. 61 ; 5 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 171. * Erickson v. Michigan Land & Iron Co., 50 Mich. 604; s.c. 16 N. W. Rep. 161. See : Cardigan v. Armitage, 3 Barn. & C. 197 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 93; Smart v. Marton, 5 El. & Bl. 30, 46 ; s.c. 26 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 360 ; 85 Eng. C. L. 30 ; Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L. Cas. 348 ; s.c. 30 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 965 ; 36 Eng. L. & Eq. 336 ; Rogers v. Taylor, 1 Hurl. & N. 838 ; s.c. 30 L. J. Ex. 303 ; 38 Eng. L. & Eq. 574 ; Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W. 60; Aspden v. Seddon, L. R. 10 Ch. App. Cas. 394 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. Rep. 773 ; Smith V. Darby, L. R. 7 Q. B. 716 ; S.C. 43 L. J. Q. B. 140 ; 36 L. T. 763 ; 30 W. R. 982 ; 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 381 ; Eadon v. Jeffcock, L. R. 7 Ex. 379 ; s.c. 43 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. Ch. 39 ; 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 438. , , . = 94 WHEN MONEY REAL ESTATE. [Book I. destroyed without some additional statutory or contract authority, and such statute or contract authority will be c§,refully construed to prevent the destruction of surface rights.^ If the grantor intends to get the minerals in such a way as will destroy the surface, he must so frame the reservation as to show clearly that he intended to have that power. ^ Sec. 103. Money real estate when.— On the principle heretofore stated,^ money which, according to will or agreement, is to be invested in land, is regarded in equity as real estate.* This doctrine also rests on the assump- tion that property takes the form into which it is turned by its owner, provided he be at the time an adult of sound and disposing mind.^ Under some circumstances the money arising from the sale of land is invested with all the incidents and attributes of real estate. Thus, where land has been mortgaged and is sold under the mortgage after the mortgagor's death, the surplus aris- ing from such sale will be regarded and treated as real estate.® And where by order of court land of a decedent,' ' Eriokson v. Michigan Land & Iron ■• Anstice v. Brown, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Co., 50 Mich. 604; s.c. 16 N. Y.) 448 ; W. Rep. 161. Seymour v. Freer, 75 U. S. (18 Citing : Roberts v. Haines, 6 El. Wall.) 202, 214 ; bk. 19 L. ed. &B1. 643; S.C. 88Eng. C. L.641; 306, 310. Smart v. Morton, 5 El. & Bl. 80, See : Rankin v. Rankin, 36 111. 46 ; s.c. 26 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 293 ; s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 205 ; 260 ; 85 Eng. C. L. 30, 45 ; Foreman v. Foreman, 7 Barb. (N. Harrisu RydLng,5Mees.&W.60; Y.) 215 ; Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. Peter v. Beverly, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.) 739 ; s.c. 64 Eng. C. L. 738 ; 532, 536 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 522 ; Jeffries V. Williams, 20 L. J. (N. Trelawney v. Booth, 2 Atk. 307 ; S.) Exch. 14 ; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Bro. C. Eq. 423 ; O. 497 ; Hilton V. Granville, 5 Q. B. 701 ; Biddulph «.Biddulph,12 Ves.161. s.c. 48 Eng. C. L. 699 ; » See : Horton v. McCoy, 47 N. Y. Smith V. Darby, L. R. 7 Q. B. 716 ; 21 ; s.c. 42 L. J. Q. B. 140 ; 26 L. T. Denham v. Cornell, 67 N. Y. 556, 762 ; 20 W. R. 982 ; 3 Moak's affirming 7 Hun (N. Y.) 662. Eng. Rep. 281 ; « Dunning v. The Ocean National Hext V. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. Bank, 61 N. Y. 497 ; s.c. 19 Am. Cas. 699 ; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 293 ; 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 296. Rep. 574 ; See : Denham v. Cornell, 7 Hun BeU V. Wilson, L. R. 1 Ch. App. (N. Y.) 664 ; Cas. 303. Bogert v. Furman, 10 Paige Ch. » See : Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464 ; (N. Y.) 496 ; S.C. 34 Am. Rep. 242, 244 ; McCarthy's Estate, 11 Phila. (Pa.) Hext V. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 85. 699; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng.Rep.574. ' Oberly v. Lerch, 18 N. J. Ea (3 » See : Ante, § 79. C. E. Gr.) 346, 354. Chap. HI. § 103.] WHEN MONEY REAL ESTATE. 95 a lunatic,^ or aninfant,^ is sold for the payment of debts, or other particular purposes, the surplus after paying such debts retains the character of real estate. Where real estate which is owned by tenants in common, of whom one is an infant,^ or a lunatic,* is sold under and in pursuance of a judgment in a partition suit, instituted by others of the tenants in common, the portion of the proceeds belonging to the infant or lunatic, remains im- pressed with the character of real estate.^ The money arising from the sale of timber cut on lands of which an infant® or a lunatic^ has the fee, is regarded as real estate ; and so also is the money arising from the con- demnation of such lands under the power of eminent domain.* An heir's interest in the land of his father is interest in realty, even after an order of sale has been made by the probate court, until the sale has actually taken place. Withers' Appeal, 14 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 185 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 488. > Lloyd V. Hart, 3 Pa. St. 473 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 613. See : Wright's Appeal, 8 Pa. St. 57 * Hart's Appeal, 8 Pa. St. 33, 36 ; Anandale v. Anandale, 3 Ves. Sr. 381 ; Ex parte Bromfield, 1 Ves. Jr. 455. In PenneU's Appeal 20 Pa. St. 515, 518, the court say that the case of Lloyd V. Hart, supra, was decided "upon pecuUar provi- sions of the statute relating to the estates of lunatics, and upon the idiosyncrasy of the state and condition of the unfortunate objects of that statute." * Collins V. Champ's Heirs, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 118 ; s.c. 61 Am. Deo. 179. See : Ware v. Polhill, 11 Ves. 378 ; s.c. 8 Rev. Rep. 144. 8 Horton v. McCoy, 47 N. Y. 21. « Re Barker, L. R. 17 Ch. Div. 241 ; s.c. 50 L. J. Ch. 384 ; 44 L. T. N. S. 83 ; 39 W. R. 873. See : Re Smith, L. R. 10 Ch. 79 ; s.c. 23 W. R. 297. ' Horton v. McCoy, 47 N. Y. 21. In Steed v. Preece, L. R. 18 Eq. 193 ; s.c. 33 W. R. 433 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 687, land was conveyed to trustees upon trust for two infants, as tenants in common in tail, with cross-remainders between them. A suit was in- stituted by the trustees against the cestuis que trustent for the administration of the trust, and a decree was made after one of the infants had attained twenty- one by which a sale was or- dered. A sale was made under the decree and the purchase money paid in the court ; and upon further conditions tlie adult's share was paid to him, and the infant's share carried to a separate account. The in- fant afterwards died without having attained twenty-one. The court held that the money was not to be treated as realty. « TuUit V. TuUit, Ambl. 370 ; s.c. 1 Dick. 333. ' Exparte Bromfield, 1 Ves. Jr. 455. 8 See : Kelland v. Fulford. L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 491 ; s.c. 25 W. R.50G ; Midland Counties E. Co. v. Oswin, 1 Colly. 74; s.c. 3 Rail. Cas. 497 ; 18 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 200 ; 8 Jur. 138. Where lunatic not in care of law. — It seems, however, that where the land taken is that of a person in a state of mental imbeoUity, who is not the sub- ject of a commission of lunacy, or otherwise cared for by the law, the money will be regard- ed as personalty. 96 MOVABLES— EAILEO ADS. [Book I. Sec. 104. Movables realty when.— Although things in themselves movable, and having the character of personal property, standing alone, are to be regarded as person- alty,^ yet they may take on the characteristics of and be treated as realty, by being fitted and applied to use as a part of the realty,^ although at the time temporarily dis- annexed therefrom,^ such as the doors of a house/ a key to the lock upon the doors of a building,*^ or blinds to the windows of a dwelling-house,^ hop-poles,* fence-rails,* and the like.^ Where a house or other building has been blown down by a wind-storm, the fragments of such house are to be regarded as realty.^" Sec. 105. Eailroads — Road-bed, rails, etc.- There can be no doubt that the road-bed and buildings erected at the station or elsewhere on railroads, such as depot-houses, station-houses, water- tanks, and the like, are real estate, ^^ and so also are ties and rails, ^^ where laid upon the road- bed and fastened thereto so that engines and cars can pass See : iJe East Lincolnshire R. Co., 1 Sim. N. S. 260. ' See: Penniman v. French, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 404; s.c. 38 Am'. Dec. 309. ^ See: Post, chapters on " Fixtures." ^ Eichardson v. Copeland, 73 Mass. (6 Gray.) 536; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 424; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 368; Sweetzert). Jones, 35 Vt. 317; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 039; Harris v. Haynes, 34 Vt. 230; Malmsby v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. 8. 115; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114. Criterion for determining class to ■wMch belong. — In the case of Hill V. Wentworth, 38 Vt. 428, it is said that "whether the articles in question were personal property or fixtures should be determinable and plainly appear from an inspec- tion of the property itself, tak- ing into consideration their nature, the mode and extent of their annexation, and their purpose and object, from which the intention would be in- dicted." ■i Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. = See: 3 Cent. L. J. 617. « Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. ' Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 123; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 68. « Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 142. " McLaughlin v. Johnson, 46 lU. 163; House V. House, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 158. See: Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 2 B. &C. 76; s.c.9 Eng. C. L.42; Walmsby v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114. " Eogers v. Gilinger, 30 Pa. St. 185; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 694. " See: McLaughlin v. Johnson, 46 111. 163; Salmer v. Forbes, 23 111. 301; Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 306, 267; Van Keuren v. Central E. Co. of N. J., 38N. J. L. (9 Vr.)165. '2 Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279; People ex rel. The N. Y. & H. R. Co. V. Commissioners of Taxes, 101 N. Y. 332; s.c. 4 N. E. Eep. 127; Smyth V. Mayor of New York, 68 N. Y. 552. Chap. III. §§ 106, 107.] ROLLING STOCK. 97 over them, in the absence of any agreement to the con- trary.^ But where rails are laid under an agreement that they shall he put down on a specified part of the road-bed, and remain the property of the vendor until paid for, they do not lose their character as personalty and become a part of the land until such obligation is discharged.^ Sec. 106. Same — Poundation, columns, viaducts, etc., of railroad.— The question whether the foundations, columns, and superstructure of an elevated railway are within the statutory definition of land, and liable to taxation as realty, came up in the case People ex rel. The New York Elevated Eailroad Company v. Commissioners of Taxes, ^ and it was held that they are real estate,* the court re- marking "that they would be fixtures at common law, as articles annexed to the freehold, is plain both upon principle and authority."^ And that the same is true of the tunnels, tracks, substructures, superstructures, sta- tions, viaducts, and masonry of a railroad company was determined by the New York Court of Appeals in the case of People ex rel. New York and Harlem River Rail- road Company v. Cominissioners of Taxes. ^ Sec. 107. Same — Rolling stock.— Whether the rolling stock of a railroad company, such as engines, cars, and the like, are to be regarded as personal property or real estate is an unsettled question. In several of the states it is held that the rolling stock and appliances of a rail- road company, being essential to its operation, although movable in fact, are a part of the structure, and to be re- ' Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 ^ See: Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co., Mass. 379. 97 Mass. 279. See: Richardson v. Copeland, 73 Haven v. Emery, 33 N. H. 66; Mass. (6 Gray) 536; s.c. 66 Am. Pierce v. Emery, 82 N. H. 484. Dec. 434; ' 83 N. Y. 459, 461. Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) * The same is true of electric poles 40; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 755; and wires. See: Ante, % 47. Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 'See: MoRea v. Central National 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306; s.c. 38 Bank of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489; Am Deo 368; Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend. Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (33 (N. Y.) 655. ,,,,„„ Pick.) 559; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. « 101 N. Y. 332; s.c. 4 N. E. Rep. 764. 137. '7 98 MARINE INCREMENT. [Book garded as a part of the realty.^ But the weight of de- cision and the better doctrine is thought to be that the roUing stock of a railroad is personal property. This doctrine prevails in Alabama,^ lotva,^ New Hampshire,* New Jersey,^ New York,® Ohio,'' Wisconsin,* and per- haps other states. Sec. 108. Sear-weed— Marine increment.— Sea- weed, which has been thrown upon land by the sea, is regarded as a marine accretion, and belongs to the owner of the soil. The rule is, that if the marine increase be by small and imperceptible degrees it goes to the owner of the land ; but if it be by sudden and considerable, it belongs to the sovereign.^ The sea- weed- must be supposed to have ' Palmer v. Forbes, 23 lU. 300, 302; (Compare : Sangamon and M. R. Co. V. Morgan Co., 14 111. 163; S.C. 56 Am. Dec. 497); Coe V. McBrown. 23 Ind. 252; Douglass V. Cline, 12 Bush (Ky.) 608; Phillips V. Winslow, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 431; s.c. 68 Am. Deo. 729; State V. Northern R. Co., 18 Md. 193; Youngman v. Elmira & W. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 378; Covey V. Pittsburgh, F. W. & C. R. Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 173; Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. James, 73 U. S. (6 WaU.) 750; bk. 18 L. ed. 854; Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co. , 69 U. S. (3 Wall.) 609; s.c. siib nom. Milwaukee & Minnesota Co. V. Soutter, bk. 17 L. ed. 886; Gue V. Tidewater Canal Co., 65 U. S. (34 How.) 257; bk. 16 L. ed. 635; Pennock v. Coe, 64 U. S. (23 How.) 117; bk. 16 L. ed. 436; Scott ■;;. Clinton & S. R. Co., 6 Biss. C. C. 539; Farmers' Trust & Loan Co. v. St. Jo. & D. R. Co., 3 Dill. C. C. 413. » Meyer v. Jbhnston, 53 Ala. 337, 253. ' Neilson v. Iowa Eastern R. Co., 51 Iowa 184; s. c. 33 Am. Rep. 124; 1 N. W. Rep. 434. * Boston, C. & M. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 37 N. H. 410. See: Pierce v. Emery, 33 N. H. 484. ■^ Williamson v. New Jersey & 8. R. Co., 39 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 311; s.c. 15 Am. R. W. Rep. 572. Engines and Cars — New Jersey doc- trine. — In the case of the State Treasurer v. Summerville & E. R. Co., 28 N. J. L. (4 Dutch.) 31, the court say that engines and cars are no more appendages of the railroad than are wagons and carriages of the highway ; that both are equally essential to the enjoy- ment of the road, but that neither constitute a part of it. « People ex rel. N. Y. & H; R. R. Co. V. Commissioner of Taxes, 101 N. Y. 333; Hoyle V. Plattsburgh & M. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 314 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 595* Randall v. Elwell, 53 N. Y. 531; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 747; Stevens v. Buffalo & N. Y. C. R. Co., 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 590. ■> Coe V. Columbus, P. & Ind. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 373; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 518. 'Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Borough of Ft. Howard, 31 Wis. 44 ; s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 458. ' Emans v. TurnbuU, 3 John. (N. Y.) 313, 333; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 427, 430-431; 2 Bl. Com. 261; Harg. Law Tracts, 28. See: Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382; s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 46. Chap. III. §§ 109, 110.] BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER. 99 accumulated graduallj'. The slow increase, and its use-' fulness as a manure, and as a protection to the bank, will, upon every just and equitable principle, vest the property of the weed in the owner of the land. It forms a reasonable compensation to him for the gradual en- croachment of the sea, to which other parts of his estate may be exposed. This is only one reason for vesting the maritime increments in the proprietor of the shore. The jus alluvionis ought, in this respect, to receive a liberal- encouragement in favor of private right. Sec. 109. Same — "WTien cast between high and low water- mark.— According to the common law of England the sea-shore, between high and low water-mark, belongs to the sovereign, in trust for his subjects,^ and consequently when the sea-weed is cast upon the shore between high and low water-mark it belongs to the public at large and becomes the property of the first occupant or taker.* This rule does not apply in those states where, by virtue of statute, the title of proprietors adjoining navigable waters extends to low water-mark as in Maine, Massachu- setts, and New Hampshire by virtue of the colonial or- dinance of 1641, since adopted as law by statutory, enact- ment.^ Sec. 110. Saw-mill, saw-dust, etc., real estate when. — A building erected upon the land of another may or may not be a permanent improvement according to the agree- ment and intentions of the parties.* Thus it has been ■ said that a steam saw-mill placed upon the land of another, conditionally, may be the personal property of the builder, and Hable for his obligations,^ if the owner of the land has failed to perform his part of the con- tract.^ And the off- fall from such a mill, — such assaw- ' Barker v. Bates, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.)355; s.c. 33 Am. Deo.378; Pick ) 255 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. Parker v. Smith, 17 Mass. 413 ; 678 s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 157; « Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. Storer v. Freeman, 6 Mass. 435; 383- s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 46. s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 155. 'See- Mather v. Chapman, 40 .« See: Post chapters on "Fixtures." Conn. 383; s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 46; '^ See : State v. Bonham, 18 Ind. Lanish v. Bangor Bank, 8 Me. 85; 333. Barker v. Bates, 23 Mass. (13 « Yater v. Mullen, 33 Ind. 563. 100 WHEN WATER REAL ESTATE. [Book I. dust, slabs, shavings, and other refuse, — when used to fill up low or marshy ground, becomes real property ; but when piled up on the land to be removed for fire- wood, or other purposes, remains personal property.^ Sec. 111. Water real estate when.— Water is a mov- able thing of a wandering nature, and incapable of abso- lute ownership.^ It is in no proper sense real estate, although it is sometimes classified with oil and gas as a kind of mineral,^ and is invested with some of the attri- butes of real property when congealed to ice.* If water can properly be classed as a mineral at all, it is a mineral of peculiar attributes, and, unlike its volatile sisters, gas and oil, the rules and regulations of mines, and the decis- ions in ordinary cases relating to mining rights, have no application to either running, standing, or percolating waters. \ Water and oil, and still more appropriately gas, may be classified by themselves, — if the analogy be not too fanciful, — as minerals ferce naturce, because, in common with animals, and unlike other mineral sub- stances, they have the power and the tendency to escape without the volition of the owner. ^ Their fugitive and wandering existence within the limits of a particular tract of land is always uncertain.'' They belong to the owner of the land and are a part of it, so long, and only so long, as they are in or on it, and are subject to his control, but when they escape and go into or onto other land, or come under another's control, the title of the former owner is goneJd Being of a movable and wan- dering nature, with a tendency to escape from any and every particular tract of land, water of necessity con- tinues common by the law of nature ; so that one can ' Jenkins v. McCurdy, 48 Wis. 638; ural Gas Co. v. DeWitt, 130 Pa. s.o. 33 Am. Eep. 841; 4 N. W. St. 335; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep. 724; 5 Rep. 807. L. R. A. 731; 1 BaU. Am. L. of ° Brown v. Best, 1 Wils. 174; E. P. 1893, § 317. 1 Co. Lite. (19th ed.) 4a. « Brown v. Vanclergrift, 80 Pa. St. ^ Westmoreland & Cambria Natural 147, 148. Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa. St. ' Westmoreland & Cambria Nat- 335 ; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep. 724; 5 L. ural Gas Co. v. DeWitt 130 Pa R. A. 731; 1 Ball. Am. L. of R. St. 235; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep 734- 5 '4 o ^- ff' I T- ^- ^- ^- ^^^' 1 Ball. Am. L.'of * See: Ante, § 70. R. P. 1893, § 317. * Westmoreland & Cambria Nat- Chap. III. § 111.] PROPERTY IN WATER. 101 only have a temporary, uncertain, transient, usufruct- uary property in it.^ While the grant of a parcel of land passes the property in a stream of water which runs over it, as much as it does the property in the stones that are upon the surface,^ yet the right of the grantee to the uninterrupted and full use of the water as it flows naturally past his land is not an absolute right, but a natural one, qualified and limited by the existence of like rights in others. His enjoyment must necessarily be according to his opportunities, prior to those below him, and subsequent to those above him, and liable to be modi- fied or abridged by the reasonable use of the stream by others.* ' 2 Bl. Com. 14, 18. 30 Mirm. 249; s-c. 44 Am. Rep. » Browne v. Kennedy, 6 Har. & J. 194, 196 ; (Md.) 195; S.C. 9 Am. Dec. 503 ; Merrifield v. City of Worcester, Elliot V. Fitchburg R. Co., 64 110 Mass. 216; s.c. 14 Am. Rep. Mass. (10 Cush.) 191, 193 ; 592 : Canal Commissioners v. People, 5 Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Cai. (N. Wend. (N. Y.) 423 ; Y.) 307; s.c. 2 Am. Deo. 270 ; Buckingham v. Smith, 10 Ohio Piatt r. Johnson, 15 John. (N. Y.) 288. 213 ; s.a 8 Am. Dec. 233. 3 Red River Roller Mills v. Wright, CHAPTER IV. FIXTUBBS. Sec. 113. Definition of fixture. Sec. 113. What fixtures pass with the realty. Sec. 114. Criteria for determining. Sec. 115. Same — 1. Actual annexation. Sec. 116. Same— Same— Manner of annexation and character of article. Sec. 117. Same — 2. Appropriation to use. Sec. 118. Same — 3. Adaptation to the use. Sec. 119. Same — 4. Policy of the law. Sec. 120. Same— 5. Intention of the parties. Sec. 131. Same — Same — Permanency of attachment controlled by in- tent. Sec. 123. Kinds or classes of fixtures. Sec. 133. Same — 1. Agricultural fixtures. Sec. 124. Same — 3. Domestic fixtures— a. Useful fixtures. Sec. 125. Same — Same — b. Ornamental fixtures. Sec. 136. Same — 3. Ecclesiastical fixtures. Sec. 137. Same — 4. Trade fixtures. Sec. 128. Same — 5. Mixed fixtures. Sec. 139. Between whom the question of fixtures may arise. Sec. 130. Same — 1. Assignee in bankruptcy and for benefit of creditors. Sec. 131. Same — 3. Debtor and execution creditor. Sec. 133. Same — 3. Executor and heir-at-law. Sec. 133. Same — 4. Executor of tenant for fife and remainderman. Sec. 134. Same — 5. Heir-at-law and devisee. Sec. 135. Same — 6. Landlord and tenant. Sec. 136. Same — Same — Removal of fixtures by tenant. Sec. 137. Same — Same — Renewal of lease without removal of fixtures. Sec. 138. Same — 7. Mortgagor and mortgagee. Sec. 139. Same — 8. Personal representative and devisee. Sec. 140. Same — 9. Tenants in common. Sec. 141. Same — 10. Vendor and vendee. Sec. 143. Same — Same — Gas-fixtures, chandeliers, etc. Sec. 143. Same — Same — Fixtures annexed by one in possession under contract of purchase. Sec. 144. Agreement in relation to fixtures. Sec. 145. Same — Limitation of doctrine. Sec. 146. Removal of fixtures. Sec. 147. Same — ^Exceptions to the rule. 102 Chap. IV. §§ 112, 113.] FIXTURES— DEFINITION. 103 Section 112. Deflnition of fixture.— The word "fixture" is a substantive term of modern origin/ and is applied to articles of the nature of personal property. It includes any article which was a chattel, but which, by being physi- cally annexed or affixed to the realty, becomes accessory to, and part and parcel of it ; ^ and if on the premises at the time of the execution of a deed, pass with the con- veyance.^ Fixtures, though attached to the soil, are not for all purposes, and between all parties who may be con- cerned, a part of the freehold.* Sec. 113. What fixtures pass with the realty.— Those fix- tures which are incident to the land and used in connection therewith, although temporarily detached, pass by a deed of the realty, notwithstanding an oral exception and res- ervation made at the time of the execution of the deed : ^ ' Hutchins i\ Masterson, 46 Tex. 551 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 286. For a full discussion, see 3 Alb. L. J. 407, 421. 2 Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; S.C. 59 Am. Dec. 634. See : Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.)155; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 201; Mather ■;;. Fraser, 3 Kay & J. 536. 3 Stockwell V. Campbell, 89 Conn. 363 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 393 ; Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ; Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 753 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 323 ; Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 838 ; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 655; D'Eynoourt v. Gregory, L. R. 3 Eq. Cas. 383. See : Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. 719 ; BringholfiJ.Munzemaler, 20 Iowa 513; Corliss V. McLagin, 29 Me. 115 ; Turll V. Fuller, 28 Me. 545 ; Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 152; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503 ; B.C. 77 Am. Deo. 780 ; Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 665; Fryatt v. SuUivan County, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 116 ; Powell V. Monson & B. Mfg. Co., 3 Mas. C. C. 347, 459. ■* See : Kerr's Benjamin on Sales, vol. I., p. 108, §131 ; Blackburn on Sales, 9, 10. 6 Brock V. Smith, 14 Ark. 431 ; Parson v. Camp, 1 1 Conn. 535 ; MoLaughUn v. Johnson, 46 lU. 163; Smith V. Price, 39 111. 28 ; Palmer v. Forbes, 21; III. 300 ; Redlon i\ Barker, 4 Kan. 445 ; Fulton V. Norton, 64 Mc. 410 ; Turll V. Fuller, 28 Me. 545 ; Lassell v. Reed. 6 Me. (0 Greenl.) ■233; Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 157 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 201; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 30G ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 368 ; Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 369; Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 314. Glidden v. Bennett. 48 N. H. 306 : Wadleigh f. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 780 ; Conner v. Coffin, 37 N. H. 543 ; Sawyer v. Twiss, 26 N. H. 345 ; Needham v. Allison, 34 N. H. (4 Fost.) 855 ; Kittredge v. Woods. 3 N. H. 503 ; B.C. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ; Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y. 170; Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 133; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 68 ; 104 WHAT PASS WITH LAND. [Book I. such as a bell hung upon a frame, and fastened to it by a hasp, the frame being nailed to the cupola of a barn ; * the boiler of a cotton mill ; ^ the blinds to the win- dows of a dwelling ; ^ a cider-mill ; * a copper kettle boiler in a brew-house ; ^ a cotton-ginn," attached to the gears in the ginn-house ; " the doors of a building ; ^ a dye- kettle affixed in brick in a fulling-mill ; ^ a dye-house ; i" the engine of a cotton mill,^^ and the engine, utensils and implements, whether attached or loose, used in working a mine ; ^ everything put into and forming a part of a building ; ^^ a factory bell hung in a tower built upon the factory to receive it ;■'* fences, ^^ fence rails or material placed along the line of a contemplated fence and not yet used,^^ or temporarily detached ;^^ frames filled with satin and attached to the walls- ; ^^ fruit trees and orna- mental shrubbery, though growing in. a nursery ; ^^ gar- Austin i'.Sawyer,9 Cow.(]Sr.y.)39; Raymond v. White, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 319. Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 665 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 456 ; Goodrich v. Jones, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 143; Cresson v. Stout, 17 Johns (N. Y.) 116 : s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 373 ; Heermance v. Vernoy, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 5 ; Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend. _(N. Y.) 686 ; Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 169 ; Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 97 ; Latham v. Blakely, 70 N. C. 368 ; Meig's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 38 ; s.c. 1 Am. Rep. 372 ; Hm V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271 ; S.C. 91 Am. Dec. 209, 211 ; Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; S.C. 37 Am. Deo. 490 ; Ripley v. Paige, 12 Vt. 353. ' Weston V. Weston, 101 Mass. 514. See : Alvord Carriage Mfg. Co. V. Gleason, 36 Conn. 86. ' McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186. " Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. '' Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 780. ' Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 680. ' Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 97 ; Latham v. Blakely, 70 N. C. 368. ' Farris v. Walker, 1 Bail. (S. C.) L. 540. " Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 338. ' See: Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159. '» Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 814. " McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 106. " Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & Fin. 312 ; s.c. 9 Jiir. 883. '^See: Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 154; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 301 ; Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (10 Pick.) 314 ; Richardson v. Borden, 43 Miss. 71 ; s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 595 ; Tabor v. Robinson, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 483 ; Main v. Schwarzwselder, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 378 ; Lynde v. Russell, 1 Bai-n. & Adol. 394; s.c. 20Eng. C.L. 532. Compare : Peck v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 288 ; " Alvord Carriage Mfg.Co. v. Glea- son, 36 Conn. 86. See : Weston v. Weston, 103 Mass. 514. '= Ghddin v. Bennett, 43 N. H. 306. " Conklin?;. Parsons,l Chand. (Wis.) 240. " Goodrich v. Jones, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 142. '* D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 5 Eq. Cas. 883 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch. 107; 15 W. R. 186. '» Smith V. Price, 39 111. 38 ; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 284. Chap. IV. § 113.] WHAT PASS WITH LAND. 105 den-seats of stone ;^ gasoliers ;2 gas-fixtures area "per- manent fixture " between the vendor and vendee where the latter are to remain ; ^ gas-pipes which run through the walls and under the floors of a house ; * a hat-rack, where attached to the building in the course of its erection, and as a part of the process ; ^ hay scales ; ^ hop-poles, though detached from the ground and stacked in a pile ; '' a hotel sign attached to the building or a post ; ^ the key to a building ; ^ a kitchen range ; ^^ lumber hauled for a building ; ^^ machinery put in a building fitted up as a manufactory by the owner of the fee, where it is essential to the manufactory ; ^ machinery in a shop and necessary ' D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 3 Eq. Cas. 383 ; s.c. 36 L. R. Cli. 107 ; 15 W. R. 186. 2 Sewell V. Angerstein, 18 L. T. N. S. 301. ' Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 351. Compare : Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 135, 137 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 353. McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 81 N. y., 38; s.c. 37 Am. Rep, 471. * McKeage i\ Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 81 N. y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 471. 5 Ward V. Kilpatriok, 85 N. y. 413. * Dudley v. Foote, 63 N. H. 57 ; s.c. 56 Am. Rep. 489. See : Arnold v. Crowder, 81 111.56. ' Bislaop V. Bishop, 11 N. y. 123. Compare : Noyes v. Terry, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 219, 332. * Redlon v. Barker, 4 Kan. 382 ; s.c. 96 Am. Dec. 180. Compare : Woodward v. Lasar, 31 Cal. 448; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 751 Ex parte Sheen, JJe Thomas, 43 L. T. N. S. 688. 9 See : 3 Cent. L. J. 617. i» Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251. " McLaughlin v. Johnson, 46 111. 163. " Ottumwa Woollen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 lovra, 57 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. 719 ; Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 154 ; Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 752 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 323 ; Longbottom v. Berry, L. R. 5 Q. B. 133 ; Queen v. Inhabitants of Parish of Lee, L. R. 1 Q. B. 241 ; s.c. 14 W. R. 311 ; Hubbard ?'. Bagsha^v, 4 Sim. 336. As to when machinery Is a fixture, — See : Hancock v. Jordan, 7 Ala. 448 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. COO ; Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 718 ; Taffei;. Warnick, 3 Blackf . (Ind.) Ill ; s.c. 23 Am. Deo. 383 ; Goddard v. Bolster, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 437 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 320; Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 154, 157 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 201 ; Kirwan v. Latour, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) 389; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 519; Winslow V. Merchants" Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 406; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 368 ; Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 323 ; Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ; Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 203 ; Randolph v. Gwynne, 7 N. J. Eq. (3 Halst.) 88 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec. 265; Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 665 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 456 ; Holmes v. Tremper, 20 John. (N. y.)29; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 208; Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. \.) 116 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 373 ; Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. St. 507 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 612; Gray v. Holdship, 17 Eng. & R. (Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 680 ; Pyle V. Pennock, 3 Watts & S. 106 WHAT PASS WITH LAND. [Book I. to its usefulness ; ^ machinery of a marine railway ; ^ machinery used in carrying on business, where part is at- tached to the soil, and the other parts not attached are necessary to the use of the parts so attached ; ^ machinery for manufacturing purposes where essential to the manu- factory ; * machinery in a mill ^ for manufacturing pur- poses ;^ manure '' made on a farm in the usual course of husbandry ; ^ the mill-wheel and gearing of a factory, attached to the same, and necessary for the operation of such factory ;^ mirrors built into a house ;^'' mosquito screens ;^^ pictures in panels on the wall ;^ platform (Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 517; Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 490; McKenna v. Hamiraond, 3 Hill. (S. C.) L. 831 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 366; Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 4 Hump. (Tenn.) 451 ; s.c. 40 Am. Dec. 658 ; Tobias v. Francis, 3 Vt. 425 ; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 217. South Bridge Savings Bank v. Stevens Tool Co., 130 Mass. 547. Compare : Hubbell v. East Cam- bridge Five Cent Savings Bank, 132 Mass. 447 ; s.c. 43 Am. Eep. 446. ' Tyson v. Post, 108 N. Y. 217 ; s.c. 2 Am. St. Eep. 409. 'Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44; s.c. 1 Am. St. Kep. 368 ; 8 Atl. Eep. 901. * Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 413. See : Pea v. Pea, 35 Ind. 387 ; Bowen v. Wood, 35 Ind. 268 ; Stanhope v. Suplee, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 455 ; Climie v. Wood, L. R. 3 Ex. 257. » Farrar v. Staokpole, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 154, 157 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 201 ; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 368 ; Eobertson V. Corset, 39 Mich. 777 ; Hill V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271; s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209 ; Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 490. * Capen v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88 ; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78 ; s.c. 11 Am. Eep. 310 ; Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38 Mich. 93 ; s.c. 31 Am. Eep. 314 ; Coleman v. Stearns Mfg. Co., 38 Mich. 80 ; Case V. Arnett, 26 N. J. Eq. (11 C. E. Gr.) 959 ; Grimshawe v. Burnham, 25 U. C. Q. B. 147 ; McLaren v. Coombs, 16 Grant TJ. C. 587. ' Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 535 ; Chase v. Vvingate, 68 Me. 304 ; s.c. 6 Eep. 749 ; Staples V. Emery, 7 Me. 201 ; Lassell v. Eeed, 6 Me. 223 ; Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 369; Sawyer v. Twiss, 36 N. H. 345. Needham v. Allison, 34 N. H. (4 Fost.) 85a ; Conner v. Coffin, 22 N. H. 588 ; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 508 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 142 ; Middlebrooke v. Corwin, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 169. * Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 535; Kittredge v. Woods, 3N. H. 503 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 142. * Powell V. Monson & B. Mfg. Co., 3 Mas. C. C. 347, 459. " Mackie v. Smith, 5 La. An. 717 ; Wardv. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413 ; s.c. 39 Am. Eep. 674 ; Lockwood V. Lockwood, 3 Eedf . (N. Y.) 830. " Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ; s.c. 41 Am. Eep. 351. " D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. E. 3 Chap. IV. § 113.] WHAT PASS WITH LAND. loT scales,^ where bolted and fastened to sills, laid upon a brick wall, set in the ground, and intended for permanent farm use ; ^ rails and materials prepared for a fence ; ^ rollers of a marine railway ; * salt-pans erected by the owner of a salt spring for the profitable enjoyment of the inheritance ;^ a saw-mill with such appurtenances as the mill-chain, dogs, and bars ; ^ seats in a theater, where made after a pattern furnished with special reference to the size and shape of the auditorium, and screwed to the floor ; '' shaftin ; of a marine railway ; ^ shutters to the windows of a dwelling ; ® a smutter, lent to the owner of a grist-mill and fastened therein in the usual manner ;^'' statuettes ; ^^ stoves, permanently attached to the brick- work of chimneys,^ — but it is otherwise where they have been disconnected and put away for the summer, ^^ or are merely connected by a pipe ; ^* a sugar-mill on a planta- tion ; ^° a sun-dial ; ^*' tanks ; ^"^ tapestry on the wall ; ^ a threshing machine affixed by the owner in a barn by means of screws and bolts ; ^^ tip-hammers firmly at- tached to blocks set in the ground, and especially ad- apted to use in connection with the freehold ; ^° vases ; ^^ a varnish-house ; ^ a water filter ; ^ the windows of a Eq. Cas. 382 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch. Eq. Cas. 382 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch. 107 ; 15 W. R. 186. 107 ; 15 W. R. 186. ' Arnold v. Crowder, 81 lU. 56 ; s.c. >« Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 310. 25 Am. Rep. 260. See : Folsom v. Moore, 19 Me. 253; See : Dudley v. Foote, 63 N. H. Smith v. Heiskell, 1 Cr. C. C. 99. 57 ; s.c. 56 Am. Rep. 489. " Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 310. ' Arnold i\ Crowder, 81 111. 56 ; s.c. " Freeland v. Southworth,24 Wend. 25 Am. Rep. 260. (N. Y.) 191. » McLaughlin v. Johnson,46 111.163; " Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 551 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 286. 143 • 'n Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y. Ripley v. Paige, 17 Vt. 353. 170. < Tyson v. Post, 108 N. Y. 217 ; s.c. " Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ; 2 Am. St. Rep. 409. s.c. 41 Ana. Rep. 251. 5 Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ; '» D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. B s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 764. Eq. Cas. 382 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch. • Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 107 ; 15 W. R. 186. Grcenl.) 154 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. " Wiltshear v. Cottrell, 1 El. & Bl. 201 674 ; s.c. 73 Eng. C. L. 674. ' Gross V. Jackson, 6 Daly (N. Y.) «" McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass. 463 ; s.c. 17 Alb. L. J. 479. (14 AUen) 136. « Tyson v. Post, 108 N. Y. 217 ; s.c. " D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 5 2 Am St Rep. 409. Eq. Cas. 382; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch. • Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. 107 ; 15 W. R. 186. ■"Stillmani;. Flenniken, 58 Iowa «2 pgnton v. Robart, 3 East88 ; s.c. 450 ; s.c. 43 Am. Rep. 120 ; 10 6 Rev. Rep. 376. N. W. Rep. 482. ^' Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 136; s.c. " D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 3 41. Am. Rep. 351. 108 "WHAT NOT PASS WITH LAND. [Book I. house ; ^ and the hke. But it has been held otherwise as to aviaries ; ^ a Baltimore heater ; ^ a boiler built into a frame erected for that purpose in a house, but capable of removal without injury to the building ; * a carding- machine in a wool-carding factory,^ fastened to the floor with cleats and nails,® even though not capable of being taken out of the building without being first taken to pieces ; "^ a church-bell ; ^ a cider-mill ; ^ conserva- tories ; ^^ cord- wood ; ^^ a cupboard fitted into a recess ; ^ a ferry-boat run by a chain fastened to the shore on either side ; •'^ frames to carding and spinning machines ; ^* a gin-head, though attached to the gin-house by a brace ; ^ a heater in a tannery vat ; ^^ hot-houses ; ^'' a hotel sign ; ^^ gas-fixtures in a house, although connected with the house in the usual m.anner,^^ whether in the shape of chandehers suspended from the ceiling, or as I Peck V. Batohelder, 40 Vt. 233. '^ Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237, 345; B.C. 90 Eng. C. L. 335, 345; Wire V. Mitchell,10 Barn.& C.299, 814 ;s.o. 31 Eng. C. L. 133, 138. ^ Harmony Building Association ■;;. Berger, 99 Pa. St. 330. * Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ; s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 300. ^ Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 353 : s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 333 ; Sturgis V. Warren, 11 Vt. 33 ; Tobias v. Francis, 3 Vt. 435. « Swift V. Thomson, 9 Conn. 63 ; Taffe V. Warwick, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) Ill ; Vanderpool v. Van Allen, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 157 ; Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.) 116; Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 636. ' Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 223. * Congregational Society v. Flem- ing, 11 Iowa 533 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 511. ' Holmes v. Tremper, 20 John. (N. Y.) 29, where erected by a ten- ant holding from year to year at his own expense, and for his own use, in making cider on the farm. >» Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237, 245 ; s.c. 90 Eng. 0. L. 337, 245; Wise V. Metoalf, 10 Barn. & C. 314 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 133. " Brock V. Smith, 14 Ark. 431. '2 Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 310. " Cowart V. Cowart, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 57. » Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.) 116 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo. 373. '° Hancock v. Jordan, 7 Ala. 448 ; s.c. 43 Am. Deo. 600. " Raymond v. White, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 319. " Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 337, 245 ; S.C. 90 Eng. C. L. 237, 345; Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Bam. & C. 299, 314; s.c 31 Eng. C. L. 133, 138. '* Woodward v. Lazar, 31 Cal. 448 ; s.c. 83 Am. Deo. 751 ; Ex parte Sheen, Be Thomas, 43 L. T. N. S. 638. Compare : Redlon v. Barker, 4 Kan. 383; s.c 96 Am. Deo. 180. " Towne v. Fiske, 137 Mass. 135 ; S.C. 33 Am. Rep. 353. But not as between mortgagor and mortgagee. McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 471. Although they are held to be "permanent fix- tures" as between vendor and vendee, where they are to re- main. Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 136; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251. Chap. IV. § 113.] "WHAT NOT PASS WITH LAND. 109 brackets from the side-walls, though attached to the gas- pipes by screws and made tight by cement ; ^ a loom used in a building, ^ such as a woolen factory, and fastened to the floor by screws, connected with the motive powers by leathern bands, and capable of being removed without injury to the building or themselves ; ^ machinery in a factory, heavy and screwed to the floor, and connected with the shafting, but removable without injury to the building, and serviceable elsewhere ;* menageries ; ^ mirrors supported by hooks driven into the wall," — but it will be otherwise where the mirror frames are actually annexed to the building during the course of its erection and as a part of the process ; "^ but mirrors put in after a house is built, kept in their place by hooks and supports, some of which are fastened with screws to the wood- work, ahd others driven in the wall, capable of being detached without injuring the walls, are not fixtures ; ^ observatories ; ® a packing machine ' McConnell v. Blood, 133 Mass. 47 ; s.o. 25 Am. Eep. 12 ; Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 ; Eogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.o. 93 Am. Dec. 299. Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 487; Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 363 ; Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Pa. St. 506 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 403, note ; Jarechi v. Philharmonic Society, 79 Pa. St. 403 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 78; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C ^ L 135 ■2 Walker t;. Sherman, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 363 ; Teafl V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 639 ; Hutchinson v. Kay, 23 Beav. 413. Compare: In re Dawson, 16 W. R. 424. 8 Murdook v. Gilford, 18 N. Y. 28. * Hubbell V. East Cambridge Five Cent Savings Bank, 132 Mass. 447 ; S.C. 43 Am. Rep. 446. ' Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237, 345 ; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 337, 245 ; Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Barn. & C. 214; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132. sMcKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 471. See : Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 311 ; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 299 ; Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 487; Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 363 ; Vaughen v. Haldeman, 33 Pa. St. 523; Montague v. Dent. 10 Rich. (S. C.) L. 13.-) : Beck V. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94. ■" Ward V. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413. * McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. , 81 N. Y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am. Eep. 471. See : Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 84; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Deo. 299 ; Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 487; Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 363 ; Vaughen v. Haldeman, 38 Pa. St. 533 ; Montagvie v. C.) L. 135 ; Beck V. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94. ° Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 337, 245; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 237, 345; Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Barn. & C. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. 110 WHAT NOT PASS WITH LAND, [Book I. used in a building ; ^ pineries ; ^ a portable air-furnace, although connected with the house in the usual man- ner ; ^ a safe ; * salt-kettles, though imbedded in brick arches, but capable of being removed without injury to themselves ; ^ settees used as seats in a church ; ^ a saw-mill erected on land by one other than the owner of the fee ; "^ a shearing-machine used in a building ; * show-cases in a store, though resting on the floor and nailed or screwed to the wall, but furnishing no part of the room ; ^ a sign-board screwed to a block in the wall ; '" spinning- jennies used in a building ; " spinning-frames fastened to the floor by cleats and nails ; ^ stones for grinding bark, affixed to a bark-mill ; ^^ a steam-engine erected by a tenant for life for the purposes of trade ; i* stones reserved and removed to another part of the prem- ises ; ^® stone piers and abutnients for a bridge built by a 299, 314 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132, 138. 1 Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 636. See : Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 634. « Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & BI. 237, 245 ; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 237, 245 ; Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Barn. & C. 314 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132. 3 Towne V. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 353. A portable iron famace used for heating a church has been held not to be a fixture within a mortgage of the land. Rahway Savings Institution v. Irving Street Baptist Chm-oh, 36 N. J. Eq. (9 Stew.) 61. Compare: Stockwell v. Camp- bell, 39 Conn. 363. ■■ Moody V. Aiken, 50 Tex. 65. See : Dostal v. McCadden, 35 Iowa 318 ; Folger V. Kenner, 34 La. An. 436. ^ Ford V. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 844. See : Sheldon v. Edwards, 35 N. Y. 279. ' Chapman v. Union Mutual. Life Ins. Co., 4 Bradw. (111.) 292. Special seats. — It is otherwise, however, where the seats are made of a pattern and size furnished with especial refer- ence to the size, shape, and plan of the room, and are screwed to the floor. See : Gross v. Jackson, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 463 ; s.c. 17 Alb. L. J. 497. ' Brown v. Lillie, 6 Nev. 244. " Walker v. Slierman, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 636. See : Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634. ' Kimball v. Masters Grand Lodge of Masons, 131 Mass. 59. See : Towne v. Fiske, 137 Mass. 135 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 353-; Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 : Park V. Baker, 89 Mass. (7 AUen) 78: s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 668; Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 856 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64. '" Ex parte Sheen, Re Thomas, 43 L. T. N. S. 638. Compare: Woodward v. Lazar, 21 Cal. 448 ; s.c. 83 Am. Deo. 751. " Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 636. See : Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634. " Cressonv. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.) 116. See : Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63 ; Vanderpool v. Van AUen, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 157. '^ Heermance v. Vemov, 6 John. (N. Y.) 5. •" Estates of Hinds, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 138 ; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 548. " Fulton V. Norton, 64 Me. 410. Chap. IV. § 114.] CEITERIA OF FIXTURES. HI railroad company upon lands over which it had acquired the right of way ; ^ the stools in a store ; ^ stoves con- nected to a house by means of pipes ; ^ 'weather-vanes ; * wooden structures or buildings resting by their weights on fiat stones laid upon the surface of the grounds/ and the like. Sec. Hi. Criteria for determining.— As to what consti- tutes a fixture, when an article in the nature of a chattel is annexed to the realty and passes with it, and when it retains its original character, there is not a little doubt and uncertainty, consequent upon the conflict in the decided cases. A guide which is thought to furnish a test of general and uniform application, — one by means of which the essential quality of a fixture can, in most instances^ at least, be certainly and easily ascertained, and one which tends to harmonize the apparent confiict in the authorities relating to the subject, — will be found in the following criteria : " 1. Actual annexation ^ to the realty, or to something appurtenant thereto ; ^ 2. Appropriation to the use or purpose of that part of the realty with which it is connected; " 3. Adaptability of the use to which appropriated, and to the realty to which connected ; ^^ 1 Wagner v. Cleveland &T. R. Co., Capon v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88 ; 23 Ohio St. 563 ; s.o. 10 Ani. Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. Rep. 770. 278, 283 ; * Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Potter v. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; Y.) 363. s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ; « Freeland v. Southworth, 24 Teafl: v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; Weud. (N. Y.) 191. s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634. " Harmony Bailding Association v. * Ward v. KiliJatrick, 85 N. Y. US, Berger, 99 Pa. St. 320. 419 ; ' Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478 ; s.o. MoRea v. Central National Bank 6 Am. Sb. Rep. 467. of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489. « Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. ° Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413, 93 Am. Dec. 299. 419 ; '' Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; McRea v. Central National Bank s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634. ' of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489 ; See: Voorliees v. McGinnis, 48 Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; N. Y. 278, 282. s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634. Exceptions to tMs rule there are •» Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. in those articles which are 278, 382 ; themselves annexed but are Potter v. Cromwell, 40 JN. Y. ^87, deemed to be of the freehold 297 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ; from their use and character, Pyle v. Pennock, 3 Watts & S. such as mill-stones, fejices, (Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 517; statutory, and the like. Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts & 112 ACTUAL ANNEXATION. [Book I. 4. The policy of the law connected with the purpose of the annexation ; ^ 5. The intention of the parties at the time of making the annexation to make the article a permanent accession to the freehold or inheritance.^ Let us consider each of these essentials in their turn. Sec. 115. Same— l. Actual annexation.— To give chattels the character of fixtures, and deprive them of that of per- sonalty, they must be so attached to the realty as to become, for the time being, a part of the freehold as contradistinguished from a mere chattel.^ Some of the cases hold that they must be so firmly attached to the realty that they cannot be removed without injury to the freehold by the act of removal and apart from the ab- stracting of the thing removed ; * but the better doctrine is thought to be the one which regards as a fixture every- thing that has been attached to the realty, with a view to the purpose for which it is employed or held, however slight or temporary the physical connection may be.^ Some S. (Pa.) 116 ; S.C. 37 Am. Dec. 490. ' Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28 ; s.c. 1 Am. Rep. 372. ' Capon V. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88 ; Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63 ; Congregational Society v. Flem- ing, 11 Iowa 533 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 511 ; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; Ward V. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413, 419; McRea v. Centi-al National Bank of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489 ; Hoyle I). Plattsburgh & M. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 314 ; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 282; Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; 100 Am. Dec. 485. Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28 ; Gross V. Jackson, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 463 ; s.c. 17 Alb. L. J. 479 ; Funk V. Brigaldi, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 359 361 • Teaff\. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634. 5 Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478 ; s. c. 6 Am. St. Rep. 467; 13 Atl. Ey. 370 ; 16 Id. SOI ; Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend. (N. Y.) 636 ; Teaflf V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 513. See : Clary v. Owen, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 523 ; Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 40; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 757; Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq. (17 Stew.) 344 ; s.c. 6 Am. St. Rep. 889 ; 14 Atl. Rep. 279 ; Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 38 ; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114. * Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63, 67 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 718 ; Johnson's 'Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 475 ; Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 223 ; Hunt V MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ; Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 537 ; Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber, 3 R. I. 15 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 621. ' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 857 ; s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 475 ; Chap. IV. § 116.] MANNER OF ANNEXATION. H3 of the courts have gone so far as to make the appropri- ation the only- test, dispensing with actual or physical annexation/ as of no particular consequence ; ^ but those cases go to the other extreme. The golden mean lies midway between ; for as a general rule there must be some degree of actual annexation or fixation.^ Sec. 116. Same — Same — Manner of annexation and char- acter of article.— There is no doubt but that the question whether chattels are to be regarded as fixtures depends less upon the manner of their annexation to the freehold than upon their own nature, their adaptation to the purpose for which they are used, and the intention of the parties.* While the chattel, in order to become a fixture, should be habitually attached to the land or some struct- ure or building upon it, yet it need not be constantly fastened thereto/ a constructive annexation being suf- ficient.'' The mode of annexation is important, and in the absence of other proof of intent, will be controlling. It naay be in itself so inseparable and permanent as to Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 24 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 260 ; GreenL) 154, 157; s.c. 19 Am. Potts v. New Jersey Arms Co., Dec. 201 ; 17 N. J. Eq. (2 C. E. Gr.) 395 ; TeaflE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; Hoyle v. Plaltsburgh & M. R. Co., s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634 ; 54 N. Y. 314, 823 ; Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R. Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. (Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Deo. 680. 278, 283 ; » Pyle V. Pennock, 2 Watts & S. Potter v. CromweU, 40 N. Y. 287, (Pa.) 391 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 517 ; 295 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ; Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & Laflin v. Griffiths, 35 Barb. (N. S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. Y.) 58, 62; 490 Beardsly v. Ontario Bank, 31 ' Peck 'v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233 ; Barb. (N. Y.) 619, 634 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392. Stevens v. Buffalo & N. R. Co., 2 See : Pennybecker v. McDougal, >31 Barb. (N. Y.)590 ; 48 Cal 160 • Vanderpool v. Van Allen, 10 Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59, 64 ; Barb. (N. Y.) 157, 163 ; Capon V. Peckham, 39 ,Conn. 88, Noyes v. Terry, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 93 • 219, 220 ; StockweU V. Campbell, 34 Conn. TeaflE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; 363 . ■ s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634 ; Baldwin v. Breed, 10 Conn. 60, Fairis v. Walker, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 66; L. 540. Shoemaker u Simpson, 16 Kan. ^Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wisemans 43 : s.c. 3 Cent. L. J. 133 ; Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. Brown v. Lillie, 6 Nev. 244 ; 83 Am. Dec. 475. Lathrop ?J. Blake, 23 N. H. 46, 66 ; ^ Walker v. Sherman, 20 ^/end. Despatch Line of Packets v. Bel- (N. Y.) 636. lamy Mfg. Co., 13 N. H. 205, « Brown i.. Lillie 6 Nev. 346 ; 234 f Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y, Quimby v. Manhattan Cloth Co., 170. 114 APPROPRIATION TO USE. [Book I. render the article necessarily apart of the realty, and in case of less thorough annexation the mode of attach- ment may afford convincing evidence that the intention was that the attachment should be permanent. As, for instance, where the building is constructed expressly to receive the machine" or other article, and it could not be ixLoved without material injury to the building ; or where the article would be of no value except for use in that particular building, or could not be removed therefrom without being destroyed, or greatly damaged. These are tests which have been frequently applied in determining whether the annexation was intended to be temporary or permanent, but they are not the only ones, nor is it indispensable that any of these conditions should exist. Sec. 117. same — 2. Appropriation to the use To ren- der an article that is in the nature of personalty a fixt- ure, there must be an appropriation of such article to the use or purpose of that part of the realty with which it is connected.^ If the article is attached for the per- manent use of the freehold it constitutes an appropria- tion to the use, and the article becomes a fixture ; but if for temporary use only, it is otherwise ; ^ and for this reason the circumstances of the transaction are always to be taken into consideration, to ascertain whether the annexation wr.z made for the permanent improvement of the freehold or only for a temporary purpose.* Sec. 118. Same — 3. Adaptation to the use The ancient rule which treated nothing as a fixture except such chattels as were fastened to the realty and more or less immovable, has been modified and remodeled to suit the improvements in the arts and the advancement in ' MoRea v. Central National Bank ■* Potter v. Ci-omwell 40 N Y S87 of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489, 495 ; 293 ; s.c. 100 Am. Deo.'485 ; ' Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; Farrar .v. ChaufEetete, 5 Den s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485. (N. Y.) 527, 531. •> Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; See : Swift v. Thompson, Conn s.o. 59 Am. Dec. 684. 63 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 718 ; 2 See : McRea v. Central National McKim i\ Mason, 3 Md. Ch 186 • Bank of Ti-oy, 06 N. Y. 489. Gale v. Ward, 14 Mass. 853 ; s.c' 7 Am. Dec. 223. Chap. IV. §§ 119, 120.] POLICY OF LAW. ,11/5 the sciences in modern times. At the present time' the question whether chattels are to be regarded as fixtures depends less upon the manner of their annexation to, the freehold, than upon their own nature and their adapta- tion to the purposes for which they are used.^ Actual annexation to the freehold and adaptation to its pur- poses must both unite in order to render the personal property incident and appurtenant to real estate.^ Sec. 119. Same — 4. Policy of the law The policy of the law is always to be taken into consideration in deter- mining whether the annexation of an article to the estate changes its character from personalty to realty.^ The law presumes that every useful addition to an estate is for the benefit of the inheritance, unless a con- trary intention appears. The annexation of chattels to the freehold by a tenant is regarded as an additional gift to the owner of the fee, which may be defeated by removal thereof during the term of the tenancy, but be- comes absolute in case the premises are surrendered without its removal.* Sec. 120. Same — 5. Intention of tlie parties — To change the character of an article from a chattel to a fixtm-e there must be not only an annexation or fixation to the ' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Shepard v. Spaulding, 45 Mass. Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 (4 Met.) 416 ; Am Deo. 475 ; GafiBeld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. Ward V. Elpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413, (17 Pick.) 192 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 419 ; 290 ; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y Beckwith v. Boyce, 9 Mo. 560 ; 283 ; State v. Elliot, 11 N. H. 504 ; Pyle V. Pennock, 2 Watts & S. Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 793 ; (Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Deo. 517; s.c. 6 Am. Rep. 173 ; Voorhia v. Freeman, 3 Watts & Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 333 ; 490. , Hafliok v. Stober, 11 Ohio St. 'Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. 482; Co., 13 N. H. 205 ; s.c. 37 Am. Davis v. Moss, 38 Pa. St. 346, Dec. 203. 353 ; ' Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28, 30 ; Overton v. WiUiston, 31 Pa. St. s.c. 1 Am. Bep. 373, 374 ; 155 ; Hill V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 371 ; White v. Amdt, 1 Whart. (Pa.) s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209. 91 ; . r r- t. -nt * See : Moore v. Smith, 24 LI. 513 ; Leader v. Homewood, 5 C. B N. Mccracken v. Hall, 7 Ind. 30 ; S. 546 ; s.c. 27 L. JO. P. 316 ; Sullivan V. Carberry, 67 Me. 531 ; 4 Jus. N. S. 1063 ; 94 Eng. C. L. Stockwell V. Marks, 17 Me. 455 ; 544. Davis V. Buffum, 15 Me. 160 ; 116 INTENTION OF PARTIES. [Book I. real estate, or something appurtenant thereto, as well as an appropriation to the end and an adaptability to the use for which designed, bvit also an intention on the part of the party causing the annexation to make the article a permanent accession to the freehold.^ This question of intent enters into and makes an element in each case,^ for the purpose of annexation, and the inten- tion with which it was made, are the most important conditions.^ This is often exemplified in questions be- tween landlord and tenant, but is not confined to them.* Where there is any question as to the intent in the annexation, the claimant must show such facts and circumstances as will clearly indicate that the owner in- tended to change the character of the property from per- sonalty to realty.® This intention is to be inferred from (1) the nature of the article affixed ; (2) the relation and situation of the party making the annexation ; (3) the structure and mode of annexation ; and (4) the purpose or use for which the annexation was made.® ' TeafE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; S.C. 59 Am. Dec. 639, 645. See : Sword v. Low, 123 111. 487 ; B.C. 13 N. E. Eep. 836 ; Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich. 117 ; S.C. 27 N. W. Rep. 899 ; Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 387 ; B.C. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ; Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St. 558; Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. 551 ; S.C. 26 Am. Rep. 38G ; Hill V. Wentworth, 38 Vt. 428 ; Walker v. Grand Rapids Flouring Mill Co., 70 Wis. 93: s.c. 85 N. W. Rep. 333 ; 26 Cent. L. J. 373 » Potter V. CromweU, 40 N. Y. 387 ; s.c. 100 Am. Deo. 485 ; Farrar v. Chauifetete, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 537, 531. ' Congregational Society v. Flem- ing, 11 Iowa 533 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 511 ; MoRea v. Central National Bank of Troy, 66 N. Y. 495, 499 ; s.c. 50 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 53, 54 ; Tiffit V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377, 383 ; Hart V. Sheldon, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 45 ; s.c. 30 Week. Dig. 386 ; Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y. 170; Wright V. O'Brien, 5 Daly (N. Y.) 54, 61. * Shoemaker v. Simpson, 16 Kan. 43; s.c. 3 Cent. L. J. 133. Citing: FuUer ?;. Tabor, 39 Me. 619; Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279 ; Hinps V. Amenti 43 Mo. 298 ; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 195 ; Haven v. Emery, 33 N. H. 66 ; Wagner v. Cleveland & T. R. Co. 33 Ohio St. 563. 5 Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ; Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 387; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485, 489; Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Den. fN. Y.) 537, 531. See: Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 718; MoKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186 ; Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 353; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 233. « TeaflE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634, 645. See: Tillman v. DeLacy, 80 Ala. 103; Capon V. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88; Pea V. Pea, 35 Ind. 387; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 345; Chap. IV. § 121.] INTENT CONTROLS. 117 Sec. 121. Same — Same — Permanency of attachment con- trolled by intent.— It is well established by a large num- ber of adjudicated cases that where an article is at- tached for temporary use merely, with the intention of removing it, the article does not lose its character as personalty ; but if the article is afi&xed for the perma- nent improvement of the freehold, it becomes realty.^ The permanency of the attachment, and its character in law, does not depend so much upon the degree of physi- cal force with which the thing is attached, or the man- ner or means of its attachment, as upon the motives and intentions of the parties in attaching it. If this inten- tion is that the article shall not by annexation become part of the freehold, as a general rule it does not. The exception to this rule is where the subject or mode of annexation is such that the attributes of personal prop- erty cannot be predicated of the thing in controversy ; ^ as where the property cannot be removed without prac- tically destroying it, or when the article, or a part of it, is essential to the support of that to which it is attached.^ Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44 ; s.c. Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend. 8 Atl. Rep. 901 ; (N. Y.) 636; Weathersby v. Sleeper, 42 Miss. Hellawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. 732; 295, 312; Rogers V. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. 93 Am. Dec. 299; S. 115; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114; Ouimby v. Manhattan Cloth Co., Lanohester v. Eve, 5 C. B. N. S. 42 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 260 ; 717; s.c. 94 Eng. C. L. 715. Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. ^ Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich. (3 Stockt.) 29; 117; s.c. 27 N. W. Rep. 899; McRea v. Central Nat. Bank, of Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344. Troy 66 N Y 489; ^ Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich. Potter%. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287; 117; s.c. 37 N. W. Rep. 899 sc 100 Am. Dec. 485; See: Wade'y.Johnston,25 Ga.33l; Hu'tc'hins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. Ballou v. Jones, 37 111. 95; 551- s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 386; Eaves v. Estes, 10 K^n. 314 ; s.c. HiU V. Wentworth, 38 Vt. 428; 15 Am. Rep., 345. Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) Trull v. Fuller, 28 Me. 548; 753- s 0. 21 Am. Rep. 323; Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., Taylor v. CoUins, 51 Wis. 133; 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306; so 8 N. W. Rep. 23; Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. Heilawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. (3 Stockt.) 29, 35; 295 Sisson v. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542 ; ' Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich. McRea v. Central Nat. Bank of m s c 27 N. W. Rep. 899; Troy, 66 N. Y. 489; Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. TifiEt v. Horton, 53 N. Y 377; (o stockt ) 29- Voorhees v. McGmms, 48 N. Y. Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287; 378-383 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485; j^lg AGRICULTURAl, FIXTURES. [BOOK t . Sec. 122. Kinds or classes of fixtures.— For the conven- ience of treatment, fixtures may be divided in five gen- eral classes, as follows : , , 1. Agricultural fixtures ; 2. Domestic fixtures ; 3. Ecclesiastical fixtures ; 4. Trade fixtures ; and 5. Mixed fixtures. We will take up each of these classes in its turn. Sec. 123. Same — 1. Agricultural fixtures.— Agricultural fixtures are such fixtures as are annexed to the freehold for convenience in cultivating the soil. The English coinmon law did not extend to fixtures erected for the purposes of agriculture the same favors and leniency, in respect to the right of removal, that it did to fixtures erected for the purposes of trade. ^ But the common law of England is not to be taken in all respects to be the law of America.^ Our ancestors brought with them the general principles of the common law, and claimed it as their birthright ;- but they brought with them and adopted only that portion of the common law which was applicable to their condition.^ The rigorous rule regard- ing agricultural fixtures was one of the principles not adapted to the condition of our forefathers. The country was a wilderness, and the universal policy was to pro- cure its cultivation and improvement. The interest of TeafE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa 60; s.c. s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634; 14 N. W. Rep. 90; .■HiU V. Wentworth, 28 Vt. 428, Wagner'!;. Bissell, 3 Iowa 396; 436. Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8 Elwes V. Maw, 4 East 38; s.c. 6 Dana (Ky.) 114 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rev. Rep. 523; 3 Smith's Lead. Dec. 481; •■ Gas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433. Commonwealth v. York, 50 Mass. See : Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 (9 Met.) 93; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. Mass. (IV Pick.) 193; s.o. 28 373; . ' Am. Dec. 390; Going v. Emery, 33 Mass. (16 Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349; Pick.) 107 ; s.r . 36 Am. Dec. 645; ! Wing V. Gray, 36 Vt. 261. Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 3 Harkness ■;;. Sears, 36 Ala. 493; Mass. 530, 534; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 742. Stout v. Keyes, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 3 Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493; 184; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 465; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 742. Pennook's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 368; See : Boyer v. Sweet, 3 Scam. s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718; ■ (lU.) 131; Lindsley v. Coates, 1 Ohio 243; SicelofE V. Redman's Admr., 26 Van Ness v. Pacard, 26 U. S. (2 Ind. 251; Pet.) 137; bk. 7 L. ed. 374. Chap. IV. § 124.] USEFUL FIXTURES. 119 the owner of the soil, as well as the public policy of the' country, which permits the tenant to make the most profitable and comfortable use of the premises demised consistent with the rights of the owner of the freehold, ^ required that all erections for agricultural purposes, put upon the land by the tenant, should receive the same protection in favor of the tenant that was extended by the common law of England to fixtures erected for the purposes of trade. ^ Thus where hop-poles are put upon a farm by a tenant for his own temporary use, with the intention of removing them, they remain his personal property ; ^ but when they are put there by the owner of the realty, for permanent use, they become a part of and pass with it the same as do fences.* Where land is leased for nursery purposes, the trees grown remain personal prop- erty, as between the lessor and lessee and their assigns,^ but if planted by the owner of the soil, they become a part of the realty." Sec. 124. Same— 2. Domestic fixtures— a. Useful fixtures.— Domestic fixtures are such annexations as are made by a tenant to the dwelling-house, or other building oc- cupied by him, to render it more ornamental or convenient ' GraflBeld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 cussing the more general ques- Piok.) 193, 195; s.o. 28 Am. tion of fixtures, says that " trees Dec. 290. in a nursery ground are a part Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493 ; of the freehold until severed," s.o. 62 Am. Dec. 742. but this applies only in a case See: Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. where the ownership of the 349; ground and trees unite in one Dubois V. EeUy, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) and the same person. 496; * Price v. Brayton, 19 Iowa 309. Wing V. Gray, 36 Vt. 261; See: Maples v. Millon, 31 Conn. Leland v. Gassett, 17 Vt. 403; 698. Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U. S. (2 Hurserr stock— Eaised on mortgaged Pet.) 137; bk. 7 L. ed. 374. land, — And this is the case 5 Wing V. Gray, 86 Vt. 26. even though the nursery stock * Bishop V. Bishop, UN. Y. 123; which was raised on mortgaged s.c. 62 Am. Deo. 68. ' realty has been conveyed by . * Miller V. Baker, 42 Mass. (11 Met.) chattel mortgage. Adams i). 27 ; Beadle, 47 Iowa 439 ; s.c. 39 King V. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. (N. Am. Rep. 487. This is on the Y.) 363; principle laid down by Chief Penix)n v. Robart, 3 East 88 : s.c. Justice Gibbs in Lee v. Risdon, 6 Rev. Rep. 376 ; 7 Taunt. 191 ; s.c. 2 Marsh. Wyndham v. Way, 4 Taunt. 316. 495 ; 3 Eng. C. L. 330, hereto- Nnrsery stock — A part of freehold fore referred to, that " ti-ees in when.— In the case of Lee v. a nursery are a part of the free- Risdon, 7 Taunt. 791 ; s.c. 2 hold until severed." Marsh. 495 ; 2 Eng. C. L. 320, See : Miller v. Baker, 43 Mass. however, Gibbs, C. J., in dis- (11 Met.) 37, 33. 120 02NAMENTAL FIXTUEES. [Book I. or comfortable for his use.-' Fixtures of this kind are divided into two classes, to wit : (a) useful fixtures ; and (b) ornamental fixtures.^ Useful domestic fixtures are such as are peculiarly adapted to the house or building in which they are placed, or which are essential to the en- joyment of the estate. Useful fixtures placed in a house or other building by a tenant may or may not become a part of the realty according to the circumstances of the case and the intention of the party ; but when placed in the building by the owner thereof they attach to and become a part of the realty ; ^ but not such as are inci- dental merely to a part of a building or buildings. * Within this principle it has been held that the pipes and bath- tubs of a dwelling ; the water-tanks of a building ; ^ the counters of a store ; the vats, stills, and kettles of a brew- ery or distillery, arc fixtures." Sec. 125. Same — Same — b. Ornamental domestic fixtures. — Ornamental domestic fixtures are such as are attached to the building for its ornament merely or principally ; '' such as panel pictures,^ satin adornments,^ and the like ; and may at the same time be useful, such as gas-fixtures ' Wall V. Hinds. 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Jenkins v. Gething, 3 Johns. & H. 35G ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64. 520 ; " Id. Winn v. Ingilby, 1 Dow & Ey. '' Stockwell V. Campbell, 39 Conn. 247 ; s.c. 5 Barn. & Aid. 625 ; 7 362 ; s.c. 12 Am. Eep. 393 ; Eng. C. L. 341 ; Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Ex parte Eeynald, 2 Mont. D. & 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64, 73 ; DeG. 443 ; Meig's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 38 ; s.c. Ex parte Montgomery, 4 Ir. Ch. 1 Am. Eep. 373 ; Eep. 520. Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. " McConnell v. Blood, 133 Mass. 47. 115 ; s.c. 6 Jiir. N. S. 125 ; 29 » Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. {4 Gray) L. J. C. P. 97 ; 1 L. T. N. S. 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64. 93 ; 97 Eng. C. L. 114. « Eogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91, 94 ; s.c. See : McConnell v. Blood, 123 93 Am. Dec. 299, 302. Mass. 47 ; See : Cohen v. Kyler, 37 Mo. Hill V. Farmers & Mechanics' 122 ; Nat. Bk., 97 U. S. 450 ; bk. 24 Tabor v. Eohnson, 36 Barb (N. L. ed. 1051 ; 8 Eep. 577 ; Y.) 483 ; Hutchinson v. Kay, 23 Beav. 413 : Main v. Schwarzwaslder, 4 E. D. HoUand v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. Smith (N. Y.) 273 ; P. 323 ; s.c. 41 L. J. C. P. (N. Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones (N. S.) 146 ; 20 W. E. 990 ; 3 Moak's C.) L. 337. Eng. Eep. 655 ; ' Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Boyd V. Shorrock, L. E. 5 Eq. 73 ; 356 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64, 73. s.c. 16 W. E. 103 ; s D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. E. 3 Mather v. Eraser, 2 K. & J. 536 ; Eq. Cas. 383 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch. 3 Jur. N. S. 900; 35 L. J. Ch. 107 ; 15 W. E. 186. 361; • Id. Chap. IV. §§ 126, 127.] ECCLESIASTICAL FIXTURES. 121 and chandeliers/ and water-pipes. ^ The reason for this would seem to be because the gas and water are much more a matter of convenience than a necessity ^ Sec. 126. Same— 3. Ecclesiastical fixtures.— Ecclesiastical fixtures may be defined as those annexations which are made for the convenience and comfort of the incumbent of an ecclesiastical benefice, or the ornamentation of the prop- erty. As a rule the former remain personal estate/ while the latter pass to the successor.^ It has been laid down as a general rule that the lamps, chandeliers, candelabras and gas-fixtures of a church are not a part of the realty and do not pass on a sale thereof ; " but a church organ fitted into a niche or recess left for that purpose in the erection of the building, which cannot be removed with- out destroying the architectural design, or finish and symmetry of the structure, and leaving exposed to view the unfinished wall of the building, is to be regarded as a part of the internal finish of the edifice and will pass with it.'' Sec. 127. Same— 4. Trade fixtures.- Trade fixtures are 1 Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.) Co.. 81 N. Y. 38; s.c. 37 Am. L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 572. Rep. 471 ; See : WaU v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Shawr. Lenke.l Daly (N.Y.) 487; Gray) 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64, Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. 73 ; Y.) 363 ; Keeler v. Keeler, 31 N. J. Eq. (4 Vaughen v. Halderman, 38 Pa. Stew.) 181, 191 ; St. 538 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 622 ; McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Beck v. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94. Co., 81 N. Y. 41 ; s.c. 37 Am. ■• Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237 ; Rep. 471. s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 236. Jarechit'. Philharmonic Soc, 79 See : Huntley v. Russell, 13 Ad. Pa. St. 404 ; & E. N. S. 572 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. Vaughen v. Halderman, 33 Pa. L. 570. St. 523 ; s.c. 75 A. D., 623 ; ^ Coi-ven's Case, 12 Co. 106. Sewell V. Angerstein, 18 L. T. N. * Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. S. 300. 93 Am. Dec. 299. This decision ' Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) is founded upon the following 356 ; B.C. 64 Am. Deo. 64, 73. cases : ' Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.) Tv'aU v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) L. 135 ; s.c. C7 Am. Dec. 572. 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ; See : Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. 136 ; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 351 ; Y. 363 ; Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Vaughen v. Halderman, 33 Pa. Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 St. 532 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 622 ; Am. Dec. 475 ; and Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., Montague -y. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.) 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 311 ; L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am Dec. 573. Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. ' Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 399 : 93 Am. Dec, 399. McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. 122 TRADE FIXTURES. [Book I. fixtures erected on the premises by a tenant for the pur- pose of carrying on a trade or manufactory/ The erec- tion may be made by the owner of the fee, in which in- stance the fixture becomes a part of the freehold ; or it may be made by the lessee, in which case it remains per- sonal property,^ and may be removed by him during the term.^ Where the annexation is made by the tenant or lessee, if such removal is not made before the end of the term, and the lessee surrenders the premises without removal, the law imputes an intention on his part to make a gift of them to the landlord.* This class of fixtures includes buildingwS,^ store fixtures,® ■ Justice Blackstone defines trade or tenant's fixtures as ' ■ things which are annexed to the land for the purpose of trade or of domestic convenience or orna- ment in so permanent a manner as to become part of the land, and yet the tenant who has erected them is entitled to re- move them during his term, or it may be within a reasonable time after its expiration." See : Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 338, 333 ; s.c. 2 Moak's Eng. Rep. 665, 666 ; Climie v. Wood, L. R. 4 Ex. 338. ' Walton w. Wray, 54 Iowa 351 ; s.c. 6 N. W. Rep. 742 ; Cooper v. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108 ; s.c. 9 N. E. Rep. 33 ; Carpenter v. Walker, 140 Mass. 416 ; s.c. 5 N. E. Rep. 160 ; Hubbell V. East Cambridge Five Cent Savings Bank, 133 Mass. 447 ; Lamphere v. Lowe, 3 Neb. 131 ; Globe Marble Works Co. v. Quinu, 76 N. Y. 23 ; s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 259; Tifft V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377 ; Ford V. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ; Mott V. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564 ; Kile V. Giebner, 114 Pa. St. 381 ; s.c. 7 Atl. Rep. 154 ; Church V. Griffith, 9 Fa. St. 117, 118 ; 8. c. 49 Am. Deo. 548 ; White's Appeal., 10 Pa. St. 253 ; Lamar v. Miles, 4 Watts (Pa.) 13, 30. Compare : Jones v. Detroit Chair Co., 38 Mich. 93 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 314. ■ Wall T. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) '356; s.c. 64 Am. Dec, 64; Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300: See : Harkness v. Sears, 36 Ala. 493 ; s.c. 03 Am. Dec. 743 ; Wattris v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 134 Mass. 571 ; s.c. 36 Am. Rep. 694 ; Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 Mass. 155 : s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 148 ; ■ ■ Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349 : Weathersby v. Sleeper, 43 Miss. 733 * Hill V. Packard, 27 U. S. (3 Pet.) 137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 374. ' Hall V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271, 273 ; s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209, 211. See : Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 20 Am. Rep. 431; Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591 ; s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 174 ; Keogh V. Daniel, 13 Wis. 163 ; Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U. S. (3 Pet.) 137; bk. 7 L. ed. 374. ' Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co., 54 Mich. 249; s.c. 20 N. Vv. Rep. 39. See : Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn. 333; Walton V. Wray, 54 Iowa 531 ; s.c. 6 N. W. Rep. 743 ; Mclver v. Eastbrook, 134 Mass. 550; Beokwith v. Boyce, 9 Mo. 560 ; Kissamv. Barclay, 17 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 360 ; Western N. C. R. Co. v. Deal, 90 N. C. Ill ; Krouse v. Ross, 1 Cr. C. C. 368 ; Robinson v. Wright, 2 McA. D. C. 54. ' See : Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass, 191- Chap. If. § 128.] MIXED FIXTURES. 123 machinery/ steam-engines and boilers,^ gas-fixtures, ^ and the like. Sec. 128. Same— 5. Mixed fixtures.— There is another class of fixtures in which, as Lord Hardwick says in the case of Dudley v. Ward,* "the use is a mixed case Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 368 ; Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591 ; s.c. 1 N. "W. Rep. 174. > See: Moore u. Smith, 24 111.512,513 ; MeUiop V. Meinhart, 70 Iowa 685 ; S.C. 28 N. W. Rep. 545 ; Citizens' Bank v. Knapp, 33 La. An. 117 ; Fuller V. Tabor, 39 Me. 519 , Tapley v. Smith, 18 Me. 12 ; RusseU V. Richards, 10 Me. 429 ; Carpenter v. Walker, 140 Mass. 416 ; s.c. 5 N. E. Rep. 160 ; Maguire v. Park, 140 Mass. 21 ; s.c. IN. E. Rep. 750; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 310 ; Ashmun v. Williams, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 403 ; WeUs V. Bannister, 4 Mass. 514 ; Lyle V. Palmer, 43 Mich. 314; s.c. 3 N. W. Rep. 931 ; Wheeler v. Bedell, 40 Mich. 693 ; Stokoe V. Upton, 40 Mich. 581 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 560 ; Ferris v. Quimby, 41 Mich. 202 ; s.c. 3 N. W. Rep. 9 ; Wolford V. Baxter, 33 Minn. 12 ; ' s.c. 21 N. W. Rep. 744 ; Weathersby v. Sleeper, 42 Miss. 732; Thomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 73 ; s.c. 43 Am. Rep. 756 ; Priestley v. Johnson, 67 Mo. 633 ; Hines v. Ament, 43 Mo. 398 ; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 479 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 195 ; ■ Scheifele v. Schmitz, 43 N. J. Eq. (15 Stew.) 700 ; s.c. 1 Atl. Rep. 698; Deane v. Hutchinson, 40 N. J. Eq. (13 Stew.) 83 ; s.c. 3 Atl. Rep. 392 ; Cook V. Transportation Co., 1 Den. (N. Y.) 91 ; Qreen v. Phillips, 36 Gratt. (Va.) 753 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 333 ; Van Ness v. Pacard, 37 U. S. (3 Pet.) 137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 374 ; Weill V. Thompson, 24 Fed. Rep. 14; Wansbrough v. Maton, 4 Ad. & El. 884 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 386 ; King V. Otley, 1 Barn. & Ad. 161 ; s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 438 ; Penton v. Robart, 3 East 88 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 376. Building erected without consent. — But if the building be erected without the consent of the land- owner and against his will, it seems that the building be- comes a part of the realty. Cannon v. Copeland, 43 Ala. 352 ; Dart V. Hercules, 57 111. 446 ; Bonney v. Foss, 62 Me. 348 ; Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Mass. 449; Honzik v. Delaglise, 65 Wis. 494 ; s.c. 27 N. W. Rep. 171. ' Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60 ; Hayes v. N. Y. Mining Co., 3 Colo. 275 ; Dobschuetz v. HoUiday, 82 111. 371; Cooper V. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108 ; Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co., 54 Mich. 249 ; s.c. 52 Am. Rep. 817 ; 20 N. W. Rep. 39 ; Robertson v. Corsett, 39 Mich. 777; Kelsey v. Durkee, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 410 ; Lawton v. Lawton, 1 Atk. 13. Compare: McNally v. Connolly, 70 Cal. 3 ; s.c. 11 Pac. Rep. 330 ; Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. 719 ; Thomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 72 ; Treadway v. Sharon, 7 Nev. 37 ; Scheifeler v. Schmitz, 42 N. J. Eq. (15 Stew.) 700 ; s.c. 1 Atl. Rep. 698. 3 McCall V. Walter, 71 Ga. 287 ; Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 353 ; Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 ; Hays V. Doane, 11 N. J. Eq. (3 Stockt.)84; Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 363. » Amb. 113. ■ 124 BETWEEN WHOM QUESTION. [Book I. between enjoying the profits and the lands, and carrying on a species of trade." ^ This class of fixtures also remains personal property. Thus it has been held that barns erected by a tenant for the purposes of carrying on dairy business, and a cider-mill and press erected by a yearly tenant, at his own expense and for his own use, in making cider on the farm, although firmly attached to the soil, remain the personal property of such tenant ; ^ so also is a fire-engine set up by a tenant for life for the benefit of a colliery, because, as Lord Hardwick says, the operating a colliery is not only the enjoyment of an estate, but in part carrying on a trade. ^ Sec. 129. Between whom the question of fixtures may arise.— The parties between whom the various questions respecting fixtures may arise has a great deal to do with the determination of the question whether a particular article, in the nature of a chattel, is personal property or a part of the realty in any given case. The various claimants in cases where the question of fixtures is involved may be divided into ten classes, each of which classes has its peculiar rules that govern the courts in passing upon their respective claims, and will be con- sidered in their order. These classes are where the questions arise between : 1. An assignee in bankruptcy or for the benefit of creditors and others ; 2. Debtor and execution creditor ; 3. Executor and heir at law ; 4. Executor of tenant for life and remainderman ; 5. Heir and devisee ; 6. Landlord and tenant ; Y. Mortgagor and mortgagee ; 8. Personal representative and devisee ; ' See : Elwes v. Maw, 3 East 38 ; Elwes v. Maw, 3 East 38 ; s. o. s.c. 6 Eev. Eep. 533 ; 2 Smith's « Rev. Rep. 528 ; 3 Smith's Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433, Lead. Gas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433, 1435. 1435. ' Holmes v. Tremper, 30 John. (N. Compare : Wadleigh v. Janvi-in, Y.) 29 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 238. 41 N. H. 503 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. See : Culling v. TuflEnaU, BuU. N. 780. P. 34 ; ' Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13. Chap. IV. §§ 130, 131.] ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY. 125 9. Tenants in common ; and 10. Vendor and vendee. Sec. 130. Same— 1. Assignee in bankruptcy or for benefit ofcreditors and others.— Where there has been a general assigmnent in bankruptcy, or for the benefit of creditors, the assignees, generally speaking, are entitled to what- ever interest in the fixtures the assignor himself pos- sessed.^ The general rule is that the fixtures pass with the real estate and not to the assignee as " goods and chattels" under the statute. ^ Thus it has been held that the machinery and looms in a worsted mill pass to the mortgagee as fixtures, and not to an assignee in bankruptcy, though merely attached to the floor for the purpose of steadying them.^ Trade fixtures form an exception to this general rule,* however, and may be removed by the assignee, if such removal is made before the landlord takes possession of the premises.^ Sec. 131. Same— 2. Debtor and execution creditor.— The right of a creditor to treat articles in the nature of chat- tels annexed to the freehold as personal property depends upon the right of the debtor to do so. If the debtor is at liberty to sever and remove the fixtures, an execution creditor may seize upon and remove them.^ But fixt- ' Trappes v. Harter, 3 Tyrwh. 603. 328 ; s.o. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. See : In re Richards, L. R. 4 Ch. 655; 41 L. J. C. P. (N. S.) 146; 630 ; 20 W. R. 999. . Horn V. Baker, 9 East 315; s.c. 9 Following: Longbottom v. Berry, Rev. Rep. 541; 2 Smith's Lead. L. R. 5 Q. B. 123 ; Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1467; Mather v. Eraser, 2 Kay & J. 536. Ex parte Cotton, 3 Mont. D. & See : Sheldon v. Edwards, 35 N. DeG. 725. Y. 283; « Bilger v. National Bank of New- Ford v. Cobbs, 20 N. Y. 344'; burgh, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 520; s.c. Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28. 14 Week. Dig. 410; ■* Trappes v. Harter, 2 Cromp. & M. Ryall V. Stevens, 1 Atk. 165; 152 ; ^ ^ ,^ „ Coombs V. Beaumont, 5 Barn. & Ex pdrte Barclay, 5 DeG. M. & Ad. 72; s.c. 27 Eng. C. L. 40 ; G. 403 ; Clark V. Crownshaw, 3 Bam. & Watefall v. Penistone, 6 El. & B. Ad. 804; s.c. 23 Eng. C. L. 876; s.c. 88 Eng. C. L. 875. 353. ' Saint V. Pilley, L. R. 10 Exch. 137 ; Storer v. Hunter, 3 Barn. & C. s.o. 13 Moak's Eng. Rep. 577; 368; s.c. 10 Eng. C. L. 172 ; In re Moser, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. Horn V. Baker, 9 East 315 ; s.c. 9 738. , 00 t. o^ Rev. Rep. 541; 3 Smith's Lead. See : Morris' Appeal, 88 Pa. St. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1467. 368. ^ot ., 001 » Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. * See : State v. Bonham, 18 Ind. 331; 126 EXECUTOR AND HEIR AT LAW. [Book I. ures which could be removed by a tenant, when annexed by the owner of the freehold for permanent use, become a part thereof,^ and are not subject to be levied upon and sold as personal property under an execution against him.^ Thus it is said in the case of Voorhis v. Free- man^ that machinery in a mill or factory built and equipped by the owner is a part of the realty as between the executor and the heirs at law, although as between a tenant and landlord or remainderman a different principle might prevail. Sec. 133. Same— 3. Executor and heir at law.— It has been said that there appears to be more uncertainty in the doctrine of fixtures, as it applies to the case of an executor and the heir at law, than to that of any other class of persons,^ and also that the rule obtains with most Walton V. Wray, 54 Iowa 531 ; s.o. 6 N. W. Rep. 742 ; Kirwan v. Latour, 1 Harr. & J. (Md.) 289 ; O'DonneUv. Hitchcock, 118 Mass. 401; Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 323 ; Lanphere v. Lowe, ? Neb. 181 ; Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 527 ; Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.) 116; Heffner v. Lewis, 73 Pa. St. 802 ; Lemar v. Miles, 4 Watts (Pa.) 330; PiUow V. Love, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.) 109; Tobias v. Francis, 3 Vt. 435 ; Minshall v. Lloyd, 2 Mees. & W. 450; Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368. ' See : StockweU v. Campbell, 39 Conn. 363; s.o. 12 Am. Rep. 393 * McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47; Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28 ; s.c. 1 Am. Rep. 873 ; Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 490; HUl V. Farmers & Merchants' Nat. Bank. 97 U. S. 450 ; bk. 34 L. ed. 1051 ; 8 Rep. 577 ; Hitchinson v. Kay, 33 Beav. 413; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; s.c. 6 Jur. N. S. 135 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 97 ; 1 L. T. N. S. 63 ; 97 Eng. C. L. 115 ; Winn V. Ingilby, 1 D. & R. 347 ; s.c. 5 Barn. & Aid. 635 ; 7 Eng. C. L. 841 ; Ex parte Montgomery, 4 Ir. Ch. Rep. 530 ; Jenkins v. Gething, 3 Johns. & H. 520 ; Mather v. Eraser, 3 Kay & J. 536 ; s.c. 3 Jur. N. S. 900 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 361 ; Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 338 ; s.c. 3Moak's Eng. Rep. 655 ; 4 L. J. C. P., (N. S.) 146 ; 30 W. R. 990 : Boyd V. Shorrock, L. R. 5 Eq. 73; s.c. 16 W. R. 102; Ex parte Reynal, 3 Mont. D. & DeG. 443. i' Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 753; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 323; Winn V. Ingilby, 5 Barn. & Aid. 625 : s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 341 ; 1 Dow. & Ry. 347. 3 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 490. ■■ See : Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.)L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 572. Rule as to executors— Solo infixum.— In this case the court say that ' ' in early times the ex- ecutor contended with the heir at disadvantage, and such was the temper of the courts so late as the time of Bacon's Chap. IV. § 133.] EXECUTOR AND REMAINDERMAN. 127 rigor in favor of the inheritance, and against the right to consider as a personal chattel anything which has been affixed to the freehold ; ^ but it is thought that, in the recent English cases at least, ^ the law has been construed as favorable for mortgagees as for heirs. The general rule may be said to be that where an article has once been annexed to the freehold it cannot be removed by the executors,* unless the ancestor manifested an intention, — which intention may be inferred from circumstances, — that the thing affixed should remain personal property ; in which case such fixtures may be regarded as personal property and go to the executor instead of the heir.* It may be said to be elementary doctrine that when annex- ations are made by a stranger to the fee, where the owner has not been at fault in relation thereto, they pass with the freehold to the heir.^ Sec. 133. Same. — 4. Executor of tenant for life and re- mainderman.— As between the executor or administrator of a tenant for life, or in tail, and the remainderman, or Abridgment. The rigor ap- plied to the executor has been relaxed, however, but stiU, perhaps, mainly upon the clear modern rule which favors a tradesman and his represent- ative. The elementary idea is that the article claimed as part of the freehold must be in some way fixed to the soil or part or parcel of that which is. 'Solo infixum' are the words of Lord Brogham, in Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & Fin. 312." ■ Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 475. See : Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.o. 37 Am. Dec. 49 ; Fisher v. Dixon, 130. &Fin. 313; s.c. 9 Jur. 883 ; Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 3 Barn. & C. 76 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 42. ' See : Climie v. Wood, L. R. 4 Ex. Gas. 328 ; In re Richards, L. R. 4 Ch. 630 ; Longbottom v. Berry, L. R. 5 Q. B. 123 ; Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. 338 ; s.o. 41 L. J. C. P. (N. S.) 146 ; 30 W. R. 990. ' See : KinseU v. BUlings, 35 Iowa 154; Doak V. Wiswell, 38 Me. 569 ; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 378, 383 ; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 43 ; House V. House, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.)158; McDavid v. Wood, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 95 ; Winn V. Ingilby, 5 Barn. & Aid. 635 ; s.o. 7 Eng. C. L. 341 ; 1 Dow. & Ry. 247 ; Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & Fin. 313 ; s.c. 9 Jur. 883 ; Elwes V. Maw, 3 East 38 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 533 ; 3 Smith's Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433 ; Lee V. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 188; s.c. 3 Marsh. 495; 3 Eng. C. L. 330. * Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & Fm. 312; s.c. 8 Jur. 883; Harvey v. Harvey, 2 Stra. 1141 ; Beck V. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94; Culling V. Tuffnall, BuU. N. P.34. ' See : Morrison v. Berry, 42 Mich. 389 ; s.c. 36 Am. Rep. 446 • 4 N. W. Rep. 731. 128 HEIR AT LAW AND DEVISEE. [Book I. reversioner, the right to the fixtures is in favor of the executor.^ While the law as to fixttires between this class of persons is not so strict as between executors and heirs, neither is it so liberal as between landlord and tenant. Yet it may be laid down generally that the representative of the particular tenant is entitled, as against the re- mainderman or reversioner, to such fixtures as were erected wholly or in part for the furtherance of the trade. ^ Sec. 134. Same— 5. Heir at law and devisee.— As be- tween the heir at law and the devisee of a tenant for life or in tail, the devise of fixtures is void, because the devisor has no power to devise the realty to which they are in- cident,^ except in those cases where the .things devised would pass to his executors.* Sec. 135. Same — 6. Landlord and tenant. — In the case of landlords and tenants the claiming of articles considered as personal property, which have been annexed to the soil by the tenant, is received with great latitude and indul- gence,^ from motives of public policy.® It has been said that there are certain rules that may be taken as well settled by the uniform current of judicial decision, the first and leading one of which is that the law regards with pecuUar favor the rights of tenants as against landlords, to remove articles annexed by them to the freehold,^ and ' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 256 ; s.o. 64 Am. Deo. 64 ; 83 Am. Dec. 475. Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co » See : Dudley v. Warde, Amb. 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; 113 ; MuUer v. Baker, 42 Mass. (11 Met.) Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13 ; 27 ; Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ; Gaffleld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 764 ; (17 Pick.) 193 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. Elwes V. Maw, 3 East 38; s.c. 6 390 ; Rev. Rep. 533 ; 3 Smith's Lead. Finnev v. Watkins, 13 Mo. 291. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433. « MiUer "v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) ' Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 63 ; 665 ; s.c. 16 Am. Deo. 456 Shep. Touch. 469, 470. ' See : Hayes v. N. Y. Mining Co., * See : D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. 3 Colo. 378 ; R. 8 Eq. 382. Youngblood v. Eubank, 68 Ga. '' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's 630 ; Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360; s.c. Thomas i). Crout, 5Bush(Ky.)37; 83 Am. Dec. 475. Davis v. Buffum, 51 Me. 160; See: Pellenz v. Bullerdieck, 13 Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co., La. An. 374 ; s.c. 18 La. An. 614; 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 310 ; Chap. IV. § 135.] LANDLORD AND TENANT. 129 extends much greater indulgence to them in this respect than is conceded to executors, remaindermen, or any other class of persons. ^ The ground for this is because tenants usually pay their landlords adequate rents, and for that reason it is equitable that they should have the right to remove fixtures which have been put up by them for their own convenience and use and at their own ex- pense.^ But a person occupying lands under a contract of purchase will not have a tenant's right to remove a fixture he has placed upon the land.^ The second of these well-settled rules is that fixtures which tenants are allowed to disannex and carry away are comprehended within two classes, or are of a mixed nature,^ falling partly within and partaking of the nature of each. These classes are : first, those articles which are put up for ornament, or the more convenient use of the premises, known as domestic fixtures ; ^ and second, those articles which are put up for the purposes of trade. '^ Fixtures which do not fall under either of these two classes, and which have manifestly been erected for the general improvement of the premises occupied, inure to the benefit of the freehold and cannot be removed.' This Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 Bliss v. Whitney, M Mass- (O Pick.) 192; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. Allen) 114 ; 290 ; King v. Jolinson, 73 Mass. (7 Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co. , Gray) 239 ; 54 Mich. 249 ; s.c. 20 N. W. Rep. Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 39 ; 256 ; s.c. 04 Am. Dec. 64 ; Deane v. Hutchinson, 40 N. J. Hays v. Doane, 11 N. J. Bq. (3 Eq. (13 Stew.) 83 ; Stockt.) 84 ; Western N. C. R. Co. v. Deal, 90 Kutter v. Smith, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) N. C. 110 ; 491 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 830 ; Oregon, R. & N. Co. v. Mosier, 14 Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. 437 r Oreg. 519 ; s.c. 58 Am. Rep. s.c. 4 Moore & P. 143 ; 19 Eng. 821 ; 13 Pac. Rep. 300 ; C. L. 201. Keogh V. DanieU, 12 Wis. 163 ; " King v. Johnson, 73 Mass. (7 Gray)- Lawton v. Lawton. 3 Atk. 13 ; 239 ; Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c. Murphy v. Marland, 62 Mass. (» C Rev. Rep. 376 ; Cush.) 575 ; „„ ,, „ Pugh V. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. 626. Hutohins v. Shaw, 60 Mass. (6 ' Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Cush.) 58 ; 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64. McLaughlin v. Nash, 9b Mass. (14 See : Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. Allen) 136; s.c. 92 Am. Dec.741. 439 ; s.c. 19 Eng. C. L. 201 ; ' See : Ante, § 128. Elwes r. Maw, 3 East 38; s.c. = See : Ante,^m._ ^ ^^ ^^ 6 Rev Rep. 533; 2 Smith's "Sec: Wall v. Hmds, lO Mass. (4 Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1423 ; Gray) 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64 ; Elliott V. Bishop, 10 Exch. 507. Ante, S 127. t, i,. « , , ,. = Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 311 ; ' See : Buckland v. Butterfield, 2. Bainway w.Cobb,99 Mass. 457,459; Brod. & B. 54. 9 130 REMOVAL OF FIXTURES. [Book I. right of the tenant to remove domestic and trade fixtures has been fully recognized since Poole's Case,^ decided by- Lord Holt in Queen Anne's time.^ Sec. 136. Same — Same— Bemoval of fixtures by tenant.— This removal of fixtures must be made by the tenant without serious injury to the freehold,^ during his term, because after the expiration of his term of lease he loses all control over them, they becoming part of the real estate, and cannot be claimed by the tenant or his assignee as against the owner of the land ; * and this is true whether the lease is terminated by expiration of time or by breach of contract and re-entry of the landlord.® This rule, however, applies only where the tenant leases for a term certain, and the instrument creating the estate con- tains no special provisions in regard to fixtures.'' Where the term is uncertain, or depends upon a contingency — as where a party is in possession as tenant for life, or at will, — the fixtures may be removed within a reasonable time after the tenancy is determined.^ ' Salt. 368. See : Elwes v. Maw, 3 East 38 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 528 ; 2 Smith's Lead, Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1423, 1484. " See : Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88, 90 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. '376 ; Dean v. AUaUey, 3 Esp.* N. P. 11 ; Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ; S.O. 2 Rev. Rep. 764 ; Fitzherbert v. Shaw, 1 H. Bl. 258. ' See : Allen v. Kennedy, 40 Ind. 142; Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co., I 54 Mich. 249 ; s.c. 20 N. W. Rep. 39 ; Ambs V. HiU, 10 Mo. App. 108 ; Cubbins v. Ayres, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 329. * Watrisa v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 134 Mass. 571 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 694, 696. See: Youngblood v. Eubank, 68 Ga. 630 ; Talbot V. Wliipple, 96 Mass. (14 AUen) 177 ; Bliss V. Whitney, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 114, 115 ; WaH V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Grav) 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64 ; Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 40 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 757 : Shepard i\ Spaulding, 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 416; ■- >-,-. Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 311 ; Noble V. Bosworth, 86 Mass. (19 Pick.) 314 ; Gaffield v. H^pgood, 84 Mass. (17 Pick.) 192 ; s.c.38 Am. Dec.290 ; Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432 ; Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 20 Am. Rep. 431 ; Hays V. Doane, 11 N. J. Eq. (3 Stockt.) 84 ; Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ; Van Ness v. Paoard, 27 U. S. (3 Pet.) 137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 874 ; Lyde v. Russell, 1 Barn. & Ad. 394 ; s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 533 ; Elwes V. Maw, 3 East 38 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 523 ; 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1423 ; Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 376 ; Minshalli;.Lloyd,3 Mees.& W.450; Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368. Pugh V. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. 626. Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 694. Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 134 Mass. 571 ; s.c. 26 Am, Rep. 694 ; * See: Post, (*) footnote to § 292. Chap. IV. § 137.] RENEWING LEASE WITHOUT REMOVAL. 131 Sec. 137. Same — Same — ^Renewal of lease without rem.oval of fixtures.— It has been said that where a tenant has added fixtures and then taken a new lease to commence on the termination of the first one, that he thereby loses his title in and his right to remove such fixtures.' Against this doctrine Judge Cooley enters a vigorous pro- test,^ saying, among other things: "The requirement that the tenant shall remove during his term whatever he proposes to claim a right to remove at all is based upon a corresponding rule of public policy for the protection of the landlord, and which is, that the tenant shall not be suffered, after he has surrendered the premises, to enter upon the possession of the landlord or of a succeeding tenant, to remove fixtures which he might and ought to have taken away before. A regard for the succeeding interests is the only substantial reason for the rule which requires the tenant to remove his fixtures during the term ; indeed, the law does not in strictness require of him that he shall remove them during the term, but only before he surrenders possession, and during the time he has a right to regard himself as occupying in the char- acter of a tenant. " ^ Sec. 138. Same— 7. Mortgagor and mortgagee. — The rules respecting fixtures that apply between mortgagor and mortgagee are the same as those between executor and heir at law, vendor and vendee.* All improvements and Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & S.C. 6 Am. Rep. 173. W. 14. See : Doty v. Gtorham, 23 Mass. ■• See : Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. (5 Pick.) 487, 490 ; s.c. 16 Am. 493 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 743 ; Dec. 417 ; Arnold v. Crowder, 81 111. 56 ; Whiting V. Brastow, 21 Mass. (4 s. c. 25 Am. Rep. 260 ; Pick.) 310, 311 ; Johnson v. Wiseman, 4 Met. (Ky.) Ellis V. Paige, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 357 ; ,„ ,^ , , 43 49 . Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. 40 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 757 ; Y ) 333 • Winslow Y. Merchants Ins. Co., Martin v.'Hoe, 7 El. & Bl. 337 ; 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 38 B.C. 90 Eng. C. L. 386. Am. Dec. 368 ; 1 Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59 ; Weathersby v. Sleeper, 43 Miss. Loughran u Ross, 45 N. Y. 793 ; 732; . S.C. 6 Am. Rep. 173. Thomas u Davis, 76 Mo 73 ; ' Kerr v Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150 ; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 363, 364. 390 ; • .1 mct -.oq s Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c. 6 Wadleigh w. Janvrin, 41 N.H 503; Rev. Rep. 376 ; Despatch Lone v. Bellamy Mfg. 132 MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE. [Book I. annexations to the soil pass to the mortgagee, or to the purchaser at foreclosure sale, unless they are excepted from the Uen of the mortgage in express terms. -^ This is true alike of fixtures upon the property at the time the mortgage was given and all annexations made after its execution.^ Thus it has been held that trade fixtures, Co., 13 N. H. 305 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 203 ; Davidson v. Westchester Gas- Light Co., 99 N. Y. 559 ; s.c. 3 N. E. Rep. 893 ; Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s;c. 87 Am.Dec.490; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.) L. 135 ; S.C. 67 Am. Dec. 573 ; Degrafflenreid v. Scruggs, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 451 ; s.c. 40 Am. Deo. 658. » See : Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60 ; Maples V. MiUon, 31 Conn. 568 ; Arnold v. Crowder, 8l lU. 56 ; s.c. 35 Am. Rep. 360 ; Pea V. Pea, 35 Ind. 387 ; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co. , 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 38 Am. Deo. 368 ; Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503, 514 ; Quimby v. Manhattan Cloth Co., 84 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 360 ; McRea v. Central Nat. Bank of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489 ; Hoskin v. Woodward, 45 Pa. St. 43; Longstaff v. Meagoe, 3 Ad. & E. 167 ; s.c. 39 Eng. C. L. 94 ; Wahnsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; s.c. 6 Jur. N. S. 125 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 97 ; 1 L. T. N. S. 62 ; 97 Eng. C. L. 115 ; Ex parte Belcher, 4 Dea. & Ch. 703; Longbottom v. Berrv, L. R. 5 Q. B. 123 ; Hitchman v. Walton, 4 Mees. & W. 409. Mortgagor and mortgagee — As to what constitutes fixtures be- tween, among other cases, see Rogers v. Prattville Mfg. Co. , 81 Ala. 483 ; s.c. 60 Am. Rep. 171 1 So. Rep. 643 ; Arnold v. Crowder, 81 111. 56 s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 260 ; Hamilton v. Huntley, 78 Ind. 531 s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 593 ; Adams v. Beadle, 47 Iowa 439 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 487 ; Ottumwa Woolen Mills Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. 719 ; Snowden v. Craig, 26 Iowa 156 ; S.C. 96 Am. Dec. 125 ; Daniels v. Bowe, 35 Iowa 403 ; s.c. 95 Am. Dec. 797 ; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 345 ; Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44 ; s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 368 ; 8 Atl. Rep. 901 ; Hubbell V. East Cambridge Five Cent Savings Bank, 133 Mass. 447 ; s.c. 42 Am. Rep. 446 ; McConnell v. Blood, 133 Mass. 47 ; s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 12; Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78 ; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 310 ; McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass. (14 AUen) 136 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dee. 741; State Savings Bank v. Kircheval, 65 Mo. 683 ; s.c. 27 Am. Rep. 310; Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38 Mich. 92 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 314 ; Wolford V. Baxter, 33 Minn. 13 ; s.c. 53 Am. Rep. 1 ; Thomas" t;. Davis, 76 Mo. 73 ; s.o. 43 Am. Rep. 756 ; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 299 ; McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co.,81N. Y. 38; s.o. 37 Am. Rep. 471 ; Globe Marble Mills Co. v. Quinn, 76 N. Y. 33 ; s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 259; Tiffit V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 537; Foote V. Gooch, 96 N. C. 365 ; s.ci. 60 Am. Rep. 411 ; 1 S. E. Rep. 535; Green v. Phillips, 36 Gratt. (Va.) 753 ; s.o. 31 Am. Rep. 333. '- McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass. (14 Allen) 136 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 741. See: Wood v. Whelen, 93 ILL 153; Chap. IV. § 138.J MOBTGAGOE AND MORTGAGEE. 133 which were upon the land at the time of the mortgage, pass with the land to the mortgagee/ or to the purchaser at a sale under the mortgage/ and that fixtures placed in a building, after the execution of a mortgage, in- tended to permanently increase the value of the build- ing for occupation,* become a part of the realty and pass under the mortgage.* Such, however, is not the case HamUton v. Huntley, 78 Ind. 521 ; Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. 719 ; Clore V. Lambert, 78 Ky. 234 ; Wight V. Gray, 73 Me. 297 ; Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130 Mass. 511 ; Cole V. Stewart, 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 181 ; Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 40 ; S.C. 39 Am. Dec. 757 ; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met) 306 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 368 ; Coleman v. Steams Mfg. Co., 38 Mich. 30 ; State Savings Bank v. Kercheval, 65 Mo. 683 ; Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq. (17 Stew.) 344 ; s.c. 6 Am. St. Rep. 889 ; Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114 ; CuUwick V. Swindell, L. R. 3 Eq. Cas. 349. See, also : TiUman v. DeLacy, 80 Ala. 103 ; Corliss V. McLagin, 29 Me. 115 ; McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186 ; Lynde v. Rowe, 94 Mass. (12 Allen) 100 ; Richardson v. Copeland, 73 Mass. (6 Gray) 536 ; Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38 Mich. 93 ; s.o. 31 Am. Rep. 314; Coleman v. Stearns Mfg. Co., 38 Mich. 30 ; Bumside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H. 390: Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y. 170; Blake v. Respass, 77 N. C. 193 ; Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 97 ; Hill V. Sewald. 53 Pa. St. 271 ; s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209 ; Roberts v. Dauphin Dep. Bank, 19 Pa. St. 71 ; Sweetzer v. Jones, 35 Vt. 317 ; Ex parte Belcher, 4 Dea. & Ch. 703; Ex parte Cotton, 2 Mont. D. & DeG. 725. ' See : Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. 719 ; Parsons v. Copeland, 88 Me. 537 ; s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 628 ; Corliss V. McLagin, 39 Me. 115 ; Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. 155 ; Burnside v. TwitcheU, 43 N. H. 390; Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. St. 507, 513; Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 : S;c. 37 Am. Dec. 490. Compare: Galeu Ward, 14 Mass. 352; S.C. 7 Am. Deo. 223; Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28 ; Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend. (N. Y.) 656 ; Corwin v. Cowan, 13 Ohio St. 629; Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634: Bartlett v. Wood, 32 Vt. 372 ; Hill V. Wentworth, 28 Vt. 428, « See : Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44 ; s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 368 ; 8 Atl. Rep. 901 ; Mather v. Fraser, 2 Kay & J. 536 ; Chmie v. Wood, L. R. 3 Ex. 257 ; Longbottom v. Berry, L. R. 5 Q. B. 133. »See: McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47 ; s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13. * McConnell v. Blood, 143 Mass. 47; s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13. See: Wood v. Whelen, 93111.153 ; Hamilton v. Huntley, 78 Ind. 52; Clore V. Lambert, 78 Ky. 324 ; Wight V. Gray, 73 Me. 297 ; Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130 TW^Qag^ 511 * Lynde' v. Rowe, 94 Mass. (13 AUen) 100 ; Richardson v. Copeland, 73 Mass. (6 Gray) 536 ; Cole V. Stewart, 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 181 ; 134: PERSONAL REPEESENTATIVE AND DEVISEE. [BOOK I. with machinery or fixtures merely incidental to a business carried on in the building at the date of the mortgage ; ^ or with gas chandeliers and pendant gas-burners and gas-jets on the side-walls, capable of being detached without injury to the pipes or the building.^ Sec. 139. Same — 8. Personal representative and devisee. — As between the personal representative and a devisee, such fixtures as are severable from, the freehold, and which would go to the personal representative in exclu- sion of the heir, may be devised by the testator, where the estate upon which they are located is devisable ; but it is otherwise where the estate to which they are at- tached is not devisable by the testator.^ In such a case the rights of the devisee are the same as would be those of the heir, in whose place he stands.* Sec. mo. Same — 9. Tenants in common.— The same general rules that apply as between an executor and the heir at law, and between a mortgagor and mortgagee, will be applied to fixtures erected upon land by ten- ants in common, on a division of the estate by partition.^ Sec. 141. Same — 10. Vendor and vendee.— As between the vendor and the vendee, the strict rule as to fixtures applies, and the purchaser is entitled to everything that has been annexed to the freehold with a view to increas- ing its value, or adapted to the purpose for which it is used, unless there has been an express provision to the contrary,® in the contract of sale, or instrument of con- "Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., Early v. Burtis, 40 N. J. Eq. (13 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; Stew.) 501 ; s.c. 4 Atl. Eep. 765; Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38 Vaughen v. Halderman, 33 Pa. Mich. 92; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 314. St. 532; 1 McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13. C.) L. 135; s.c. 67 Am. Dec.573. See : Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. * See : Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 78 ; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 310 ; 62 ; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., Shep. Touch. 469, 470. 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 38 * Stuart i\ Bute, 3 Ves. 313. Am. Dec. 368 ; = Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me. 537 ; HeUawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 628. 295; Queen v. Lee, L. R. 1 Q. B. » Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 241. 93 Am. Dec. 299. '/See : Chapman v. Union Mutual See : Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. Life Ins. Co., 4 111. App. 29; 493; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 742 ; Chap. IV. § 141.] VENDOR AND VENDEE. 135 veyance.i Within this principle it has been held that various articles are fixtures, and pass with the land to Fratt V. Whittier, 58Cal. 126; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251 ; Kennard v. Brough, 64 Ind. 23 ; Pea V. Pea, 35 Ind. 387 ; Clore V. Lambert, 78 Ky. 224 ; Smith V. Commonwealth, 14 Bush (Ky.) 31 ; Johnson v. Wiseman, 4 Met. (Ky.) 357 ; Lapham v. Norton, 71 Me. 83 ; Davis V. Buffum, 51 Me. 160 ; Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 154, 157 ; Kirwan v. Latour, 1 Harr. & J. (Md.) 289 ; Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 475 ; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 299 ; Schlemmer v. North, 32 Mo. 206 ; Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122 ; Connor v. Coffin, 27 N. H. 538 ; Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 203 ; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ; MUler V. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 665; Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 636 ; Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. 551 ; Connor v. Squiers, 50 Vt. 680 ; Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 124; Stone V. Proctor, 2 D. Chip. (Vt.) 113; Hitchman v. Walton, 4 Mees. & W. 409 ; s.c. 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1452 ; 2 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 441. As to what are fixtnres lietween vend- or and vendee among other cases, See : Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493 ; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 742 ; Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251 ; McGreary v. Osborne, 9 Cal. 119 ; Stockwell V. Campbell, 39 Conn. 362 ; s.c. 12 Am. Rep. 393 ; Smith V. Price, 39 111. 28 ; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 284 ; BuU V. Griswald, 19 111. 631 ; Leonard v. Stickney, 131 Mass. 541; McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass. (14 AUen) 136 ; s.c. 92 Am. Dec. 741; Richardson v. Copeland, 72 Mass. (6 Gray) 536 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 424; Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 475 ; Richardson v. Borden, 42 Miss. 71 ; s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 595; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 299 ; Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122 ; Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ; Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 203 ; Terhune v. Elberson, 3 N. J. L. (2 Penn.) 297 ; Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ; Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 487; Teaff V. Heuoitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634 ; Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Pa. St. 506; Jarechi v. Philharmonic Soc, 79 Pa. St. 403 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 78, 80 ; Meig"s Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28; s.c. 1 Am. Rep. 372 ; Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 490; Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 4 Humph. (Tenn.)451; s.c.40Am. Dec. 658 ; Hitchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. 551 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 286 ; Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392 ; Cross V. Marston, 17 Vt. 533 ; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 593 ; Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 752 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 323. Smith V. Price, 39 lU. 28 ; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 284. See : Connor v. Clark, 12 Cal. 108 ; S.C. 73 Am. Dec. 529 ; Purinton v. Northern Illinois R. Co., 46 111. 297, 300; Martin v. Pensacola & G. R. Co., 8 Fla. 370 ;s.c. 73 Am. Dec.713 ; Dioken ■;;. Morgan, 54 Iowa 684, 686 ; s.c. 7 N. W. Rep. 145 ; Rohrabacher v. Ware, 37 Iowa 85. 87 ; Johnson v. Tatlinger, 31 Iowa 500, 502 ; 136 VENDOR AND VENDEE. [Book I, the vendee, such as a bath-tub ; ^ bell, where attached to the realty ; ^ boilers used in a flouring-mill ; ^ chande- liers ; * a cotton-gin on a plantation,^ fixed in place ; ^ CMiduit pipes to conduct water to a house ; '' counters in a store ; ^ crops growing on land ; ^ double- windows in a dwelling,^" and the dwelling itself, unfinished, or set on blocks laid on the ground ; ^^ dye-kettles, brick-set in a dye-house ; ^ fencing materials ; ^^ front piece to a fire grate, ^* and the grate itself ; ^^ gas-fixtures ; ^^ hop-poles used in cultivating hops;^'^ a hot-air furnace used in heating a dwelling, ^^ and the screens placed in front of steam -radiating pipes ; ^^ machinery annexed to realty Jack V. Naber, 15 Iowa 450, 453 ; Gelpcke v. Blake, 15 Iowa 387; S.C. 83 Am. Dec. 418, 422 ; Timms v. Shannon, 19 Md. 296 ; B.C. 81 Am. Dec. 632 ; Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 314 ; Fulton V. Hood, 34 Pa. St. 365 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 664 ; Kearly v. Duncan, 1 Head (Tenn.') 397 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 179 ; Downie v. White, 13 Wis. 176 ; s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 731. 1 Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 133. ' Alvord Carriage Mfg. Co. v. Glea- son, 36 Conn. 86. « Sands v. Pf eifEer, 10 Cal. 259. ^ Johnson's Ex'r v. Wiseman's Ex'r, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 Am. Deo. 475. ' Richardson i;. Borden, 42 Miss. 71; s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 595. See: Brattonw. Clawson, 2 Strobh. (S. C.) 478 ; Farris v. Walker, 1 Bailey (S. C.) L. 540 ; MoKenna v. Hammond, 3 HUl (S. C.) L. 331 ; Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 431, 451. • Bratton v. Clawson, 2 Strobh. (S. C.) L. 478. ' Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 133, 134, and through the rooms of a dwelling ; Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122. ' Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 299, 302. « Planters' Bank v. Walker, 3 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 409 ; Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90 ; Smith V. Johnson, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 471. See : Pickens v. Reed, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 80. "> Peck V. Batohelder, 40 Vt. 333 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392. " Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 43 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 757. " Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.) 314. '''Goodrich v. Jones, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 143. " See : Leonard v. Stickney, 181 Mass. 541. ■'Id. " Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 475. See : Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 136 ; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251 ; Smith V. Commonwealth, 14 Bush (Ky.) 31 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 403; Post, § 143. " Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 133 ; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 68. ■8 Stockwell V. Campbell, 39 Conn. 363 ; s.c. 12 Am. Rep. 393. " Iron screens before radiating pipes, — Question for jury. — In the case of Leonard v. Stickney, 131 Mass. 541, it is said that the question whether iron screens, placed in front of tlie steam- radiating pipes, resting on the floor and kept in position by their own weights, with marble slabs upon them, pass by deed, is a question of fact for the jury, if the evidence is conflicting on the points whether the screens and slabs formed part of the steam-heating apparatus and its connections ; whether the apparatus would be complete Chap. IV. § 141.] VENDOR AND VENDEE. I37 by the owner ; 1 manure made in the course of hus- bandry ;2 an organ fitted into a niche in a church ;3 a portable grist-mill ; * potash kettles appertaining to a building used in the manufacture of ashes ; '^ salt-pans used in the manufacture of salt ; " statuettes erected for ornament, though kept in their place merely by their own weight ; '' steam-engines and fixtures used in driv- ing a bark-mill/ or a brick-mill,^ or a flouring-mill,!" where attached or fastened to a frame of timber, or im- bedded in a quartz ledge and used for the purpose of working the ledge ; ^^ a steam-heating apparatus ; ^^ stoves affixed to the brick of chimneys ; ^ tables fixed and dormant ; " trees cut down and lying at full length on the ground where they grew ; ^^ vats, stills, and ket- tles of a brewery ; ^® wainscot work ; ^^ the window-blinds of a building ; ^^ and the like. Many things pass by deed of a house, being put therein by the owner and seller, which a tenant who has affixed might have removed. They are regarded as fixtures, and pass to the vendee, although annexed and used for purposes of trade, manu- without them ; whether they ' Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y. were fitted to their places hav- 170. ing regard to the walls near See : D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. which tlipy stood and the appar- E. 3 Eq. 382; s..c. 36 L. J. Ch. atus itself ; whether they could 107 ; 15 "W. R. 180. be arranged for any other place * Ovcs v. Oglesby, 7 Watts (Pa.) without disproportionate ex- 106. pense ; and whether, if re- See : Morgan v. Arthur, 3 Watts moved, they were worth more (Pa.) 140. than their value as marble and ' Oves v. Oglesby, 7 Watts (Pa.) old iron. 106. 1 Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493 ; '" Sands v. Pfeiflfer, 10 Cal. 259. s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 742 ; " Sands v. Pfeifier, 10 Cal. 259. McGreary v. Osborne, 9 Cal. 119 ; ''^ Leonard v. Stickney, 131 Mass. Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 541. 752 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 353 ; " Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432. Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. » Sands v. Pfeifccr, 10 Cal. 259. 115 ; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114. " Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. ' See : Ante, S 126 ; 309. Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. " Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 299. 93 Am. Dec. 299, 302. ' See • Chapman v. Union Mutual See : Tabor v. Robinson, 36 Barb. Lifelns. Co.,4Ill. App. 29; (N. Y.) 483 ; Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 263 ; Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones (S. Tliomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 72. C.) L. 337 ; * Potter ■;; Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; Main v. Schwarzwselder, 4 E. D. s c 100 Am. Dec. 485. Smith (N. Y.) 273. » Miller V. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) " Sands v. Pfeiffer 10 Cal. 259. 665 • s c. 16 Am. Dec. 456. '* Peck v. Batohelder, 40 Vt. 233 ; ' Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392. S.C. 2 Eev. Eep. 764. GAS-FIXTURES AND CHANDELIERS [Book I. facture, or for ornament or domestic use.^ According to the weight of decision, an article may be a fixture constituting a part of the realty as between the vendor and vendee, which would not, under like circumstances, be such as between landlord and tenant ; ^ and for this reason the right of the vendee to things of a personal character must be established by showing that they were, in the deed, treated as real estate.^ Sec. 142. Same — Same — Gas-fixtures, chandeliers, etc. — The general rule is that all real fixtures, placed on the premises and attached to the freehold, as a fixed estab- lishment, become a part of the freehold and pass to the vendee.* But the better doctrine is that lamps, chan- deliers, candlesticks, candelabra, sconces, gas-fixtures, side-brackets, and the various contrivances for lighting houses, by means of candles, oil, other fluid, or gas, are not fixtures, form no part of the realty, and do not pass with a conveyance thereof, ° unless it is the manifest in- ' Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 136 s.o. 41 Am. Rep. 351, 255. 2 Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Oliio St. 511 524 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634, 639. 3 Hunt V. MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508 s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300. * Rice V. Adams, 4 Harr. (Del.) 333 Sparks v. State Bank, 7 Blackf. (Ind.)469; Symonds v. Harris, 51 Me. 14 s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 553 ; Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me 537 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 638 ; Corliss V. McLagin, 29 Me. 115 TruU V. Fuller, 28 Me. 545 ; McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186 Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass. 159 ; Richardson v. Copeland, 72 Mass (6 Gray) 536 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec, 424; Phillipson v. MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 630 ; s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 380 ; Baker v. Davis, 19 N. H. 825 ; Murdock v. Harris, 20 Barb. (N Y.) 407 ; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 43 ; Witmer's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 455 s.o. 84 Am. Dec. 505 ; Christian v. Dripps, 28 Pa. St. 271; Roberts v. Dauphin Bank, 19 Pa. St. 71 ; Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. St. 507 Oves V. Oglesby, 7 Watts (Pa. 106 ; Pyle V. Pennock, 2 Watts & S, (Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec 517; Voorhis V. Freeman, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 490; Sweetzer v. Jones, 85 Vt. 817 ; Harris v. Haynes, 34 Vt. 230. 5 McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47 ; s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13 ; Sogers v. Crow. 40 Bio. 91; s.c 93 Am. Dec. 299 ; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. C.) L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 572. See : Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251; Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 135 Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Pa.St.506, Jarechit). Philharmonic Soc, 79 Pa. St. 403 ;. s.o. 21 Am. Rep, 78; ^ Vadghen v. Halderman, 83 Pa. St. 533 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 633 ; Terhune v. Elberson, 3 N. J. L. (3Penn.)397; Chap. IV. § 143.] ANNEXATIONS BY PURCHASER. 139 tention to have them pass with the property, or the pres- ence of these articles and the convenience arising from their use are held out as an inducement to the purchaser, and are the means of making the sale. Thus it has been said by the New York Supreme Court in Funk v. Bri- galdi,! that when the owner of a house, in order to in- duce the vendee to purchase it, gave him to understand that the gas-fixtures were a part of the realty, such induce- ment was suflBcient evidence that the owner intended to make them a permanent attachment to the house, and that they passed to the vendee. Sec. 143 Same — Same — Fixtures annexed by one in pos- session under contract of purchase.— Fixtures annexed to the freehold by one in possession, under an executory contract of purchase from the owner, become a part of the realty,^ and on breach of the conditions of purchase, the person thus annexing the fixtures will not have the McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 38; s.c. 37 Am. Rep. irn Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.) 487; Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 863 ; Cross V. Marston, 17 Vt. 533 ; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 358. Iiamps, chandeUers, and gas fixtures, though often sold with the house, are not fixtures, and will not pass to the vendee, un- less there be a special agree- ment ia regard to them. Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125 ; Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 ; Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 299 ; McKeage v. Hanover Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 38; s.c. 87 Am. Rep. 471; Jarechi v. Philharmonic Soc, 79 Pa. St. 403 ; Vaugheni>. Halderman, 33 Pa. St. 522; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.) L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Deo. 572 > 4 Daly (N. Y.) 359. « Smith V. Moore, 26 lU. 292 ; Central Branch E. Co. v. Fritz, 20 Kan. 430 ; B.C. 27 Am. Rep. 175; Lapham v. Norton, 71 Me. 83 ; Hinkley & E. Iron Co. v. Black, 70 Me. 473 ; Westgate v. Wixon, 128 Mass. 304; Oakman v. Dorchester Mut. F. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 57 ; Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 185 ; King V. Johnson, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) 289; Murphy v. Marland, 62 Mass. (8 Cush.) 575; Milton V. Colby, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 78; Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349 ; Moore v. Vallentine, 77 N. C. 188. Lease of articles — Afl5xing under con- tract of purchase. — In the case of Hendy v. Dinkerhoff, 57 Cal. 3; s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 107, A leased to B an engine and boiler, with a privilege of purchase, and B affixed them in a permanent manner to land of C in posses- sion of B under a contract for purchase, which provided that if B failed to perform, all tools and machinery put on the land by him should belong to the defendant. A 'knew that the engine and boiler were to be affixed to the land, but did not 140 ANNEXATIONS BY PURCHASER. [Book I. right to remove them.^ Although a person occupying land under a contract of purchase may be said to be, in a certain sense, a tenant of the owner, still the analogy does not hold good in all respects. In one essential par- ticular, at least, it fails. The occupier is not liable to pay rent to the owner. It would seem to follow natu- rally from this that he has no right to remove fixtures annexed by him to the freehold. The reason why a ten- ant is allowed to remove structures erected for the pur- poses of trade or convenience, affixed by him to the realty during his tenancy, is because, having paid as rent a full equivalent for the premises as demised, it would be inequitable to compel him to forfeit articles, at the end of his term, which he had procured for his own use and at his own expense.^ That reason is wholly in- applicable to the case' of a person occupying under a con- tract of purchase. In such a case the occupant has paid no equivalent for the use and enjoyment of the prem- ises ; nor is he compelled to surrender the estate at a fixed period of time, as upon the expiration of a term de- mised. He can, by fulfilling his contract of purchase, become the owner of the estate, and enjoy the full bene- fit of all the erections and improvements which he has made thereon. There is therefore no reason for apply- ing to a case of this sort the very liberal rule in regard to fixtures, which prevails where the relation of lessor and lessee obtains between the parties.^ know of this agreement respect- 256, 270-371 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. ing fixtures. B failed to per- 64. form. The court held, that ^ King v. Johnson, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) A could recover the engine and 239, 241. boiler or their value from. C. Erecting building upon lands by But see : Morrison v. Berry, 43 tsnant in possession, with privilege Mich. 389; s.c. 36 Am. Rep. of purchase.— In the recent case 446 ; 4 N. W. Rep. 731, vrhere of Westgate v. Wixon, 138 a different doctrine is held. Mass. 804, 306, one Abbott, ' Westgate v. Wixon, 138 Mass. in possession of a parcel of 304. land under a bond for a deed, See : Murphy v. Marland, 63 Mass. erected a barn upon the prem- (8 Gush.) 575 ; ises, the sills of which rested in Eastman v. Foster, 49 Mass. (8 part on large stones imbedded Met.) 19 ; in the soil, and in part upon Milton V. Golby, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) the soil itself. After a breach 78 ; of the bond, but while Abbott Ashmun v. Williams, 35 Mass. was still in possession of the (8 Pick.) 403. land, the barn was attached " Wall u Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) ■ andremovedby one of Abbott's Chap. IV. § 144.] AGREEMENT AS TO FIXTURES. 141 Sec. 144. Agreement in relation to fixtures.— It is a well- settled rule of law that the parties between whom the question as to fixtures arises, may, by express agreement, fix upon chattels annexed to realty whatever character they may have agreed upon. Property which the law regards as fixtures may be by them considered as person- alty, and that which is considered in law as personalty they may regard as a fixture. Whatever may be their agreement in this respect the court will enforce, as between themselves. ^ Thus it has been held that if a creditors. In an action of tort in the nature of trover, brought by the owner of the land against the officer, after demand, it was held that the barn was a part of the realty and not subject to attachment. The court say : " As a general rule, buildings are a part of the realty, and belong to the owner of the land on which they stand. Even if built by a person who has no interest in the land, they become a part of the realty, unless there is an agree- ment by the owner of the land, either express or implied from the relation of the parties, that they shall remain personal property." Webster v. Potter, 105 Mass. 414, 416; Poor V. Oakman, 104 Mass. 309 ; Oakman v. Dorchester Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 57 ; Howard v. Fessenden, 90 Mass. (14 Allen) 124. "The facts in this case do not take it out of the general rale. There was no express agreement by the plaintiff that Abbott might remove the barn, and the relations of the parties were not such as that the law will imply such an agreement. Abbott was in the occupation of the land under a bond, by which the plaintiff agreed to convey the land to him upon the performance of certain conditions stipulated therein. While he thus occupied, Abbott built the barn in question. The legal title to the land was in the plaintiff, but Abbott had an equitable interest in it, a right to obtain a title to the soil upon performance of the conditions of the bond. He was not, therefore, a mere stranger, who erected a build- ing upon the land of another with the consent of the owner, in which case an agree- ment that he might remove it might more easily be implied. Nor can he be regarded as a tenant of the plaintiff, so that the liberal rules in regard to fixtures, which prevail between lessor and lessee, can be applied. The essential features of a tenancy upon which those rules rest are wanting ; he was not under any liability to pay rent, and he was not compelled to surrender the estate at a fixed time, as upon the expira- tion of the term ; but, upon performing the conditions of the bond, all the additions and improvements made by him would inure to his own bene- fit." Westgate v. Wixon, 128 Mass. 304, 306. Citing : King v. Johnson, 70 Mass. (7 Gray) 239. > Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251, 250 ; Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279 * Sisson r. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542 ; Tifft V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 537 ; Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y. 146 ; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 683 ; Ford V. WilUams, 24 N. Y. 359 ; Ford V. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ; Smith uBenson,l Hill (N.Y.)176; Smith V. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155; s.c. 6 N. W. Rep. 568. See : Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60; Cromio v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49, 61; 142 AGREEMENT AS TO FIXTURES. [Book I. man builds a house on lands which are not his own, by consent of the owner, the house is personal property^ and remains separate from the freehold by virtue of the agreement between the parties.^ And rails when laid upon a railway track become a part of the realty, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary ; ^ but when they are delivered under an agreement that they shall be laid down on a specified part of the railroad-bed, and continue the property of the vendors until a specified price is paid therefor, they remain the personal property of the vendors, until payment is made, and are not, when laid, so inseparably annexed to or incorporated with the realty that they cannot be removed for the non-payment of the agreed price. The agreement of the parties supersedes the law, and is binding alike upon the original ■ parties and subsequent mortgagees or purchasers with notice.* Frederick v. Devol, 15 Ind. 357" McCracken v. HaU, 7 Ind. 30 ; Foster V. Prentiss, 75 Me. S79; Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 185; Robertson i;.Corsett,39 Mich.777; Warner v. Kenning, 25 Minn. 173; Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 457; Brearley v. Cox, 24 N. J. L. (4 Zab.) 287 ; Sampson v. Graham, 96 Pa. St. 405; Sullivan v. Jones, 14 8. C. 362 ; Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591 S.C. 1 N. W. Rep. 174 ; Mansfield v. Blackbume, 6 Bing, N. C. 426 ; s.o. 37 Eng. C. L. 699; Saint V. PiUey, L. E. 10 Ex. 137 Perry v. Brown, 2 Stark. 403 ; Naylor v. Collinge, 1 Taunt. 10 S.O. 9 Rev. Rep. 691. Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 185, 187. Citing : Belding v. Gushing, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 578 ; First Parisli of Sudbury v. Jones, 62 Mass. (8 Cush.) 190 ; Ashmun ■!;. Williams, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 402 ; Doty V. Gorham, 22 Mass. (5 Pick.) 489 ; S.C. 16 Am. Dec. 417; Wells V. Bannister, 4 Mass. 514. ' Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279, 283 ; Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 185, 187. Agreement by parol. — ^As the agree- ment relates to personal prop- erty, it may be made by parol. Curtis «. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7AUen) 185. ' Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279, 283. See : Richardson v. Copeland, 72 Mass. (6 Gray) 536 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 424 ; Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 40 ; s.o. 39 Am. Deo. 757 ; Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (22 Pick.) .559. Rails and ties for repairs. — It is said in Covey v. Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 173, that old and new rails and ties lying along the track of a rail- road, for use in making repairs, are a part of the realty. Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279, 283 ; Haven v. Emery, 33 N. H. 66 ; Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 484. See : Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 263. Chap. IV. § 145.] LIMITATIONS OP DOCTEINE. 143 Sec. 145. Same— Limitations of doctrine. — There are limitations and exceptions to this doctrine, however. In the first place, the property in question must be of such a character as to be capable of becoming personal property. If the subject itself, or the mode of annexation, is such that the attributes of personal property cannot be predicted of the thing in controversy, the agreement of the parties will not govern.^ In the second place, such agreements are subject to the statute of frauds, where the fixtures are incorporated with the freehold,^ although it is said not to apply where the fixture is merely annexed to the freehold.^ But such contracts are so far relieved from the statute that they may be proven by parol.* In the third place, such agreements are invalid as against the rights of the third person,^ as bona fide purchasers of the land.^ Thus where a person who has hired the use of certain personal property converts it by annexing to and making it a part of his real estate, and then sells the real estate to a third person who has no notice of the facts, the wrong- ' See : Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ; Severance— Notice of, necessary to Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St. bind purchaser. — It is said by the 558. Supreme Court of Ohio, in the 'See: Meyers t'. Schemp, 67 111. 469; case of Brennan v. Whitaker, Trull V. Fuller, 38 Me. 545. 15 Ohio St. 446, 453-4, that " it is ' Strong V. Doyle, 110 Mass. 93. true that in the case of Ford r. Citing : Bostwick v. Leach, 3 Day Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344, it was held (Conn.) 476 ; that an agreement which was HaUen v. Eunder, 1 Cromp. M. evidenced by a chattel mort- & E. 866. gage was effectual against a • See: Frederick ?J.Devol,15 Ind.357: subsequent purchaser of the "Walker v. Schindel, 58 Md. 360 ; land, without notice. But it Mitchell V . Freedley, 10 Pa. St. seems to us to be the sounder ]^98 rule, and more in accordance <■ Ott uSpecht (Del.), 13 Atl. 731 ; with principle, and the policy s c. 11 Cent. Eep. 344 ; of our recordmg laws, to re- Badger V. Batavia Paper Mfg. quire actual severance, or no- Co 70 111 303 ; tice of a binding agreement to Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ; sever, to deprive the purchaser Sisson V. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542. of the right to fixtures or ap- ' Eowand v Anderson, 33 Kan. purtenances to the treehold. 264 • s c 6 Pao. Eep. 355 ; See : Eichardson v. Copeland, 72 Bartholomew v. Hamilton, 105 Mass. (6 Gravi 536 ; s.c. 66 Am. Mass 239 ■ Dec. 434 ; Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Fryatt v. SuUivan Co., 5 HiU ^N. Guano &FertiUzer Co.,83 N. ^ Y.) 116 ; -,, r.^,- a^ y ^^g . Fortman v. Goept)er 14 Ohio St. Fryatt v.'The Sullivan Co., 5 Hill Eep. 565; ,^ ,^ , , , ^ W Y ) 116 • Frankland v. Moultob et al., 5 Smith V. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155 ; Wis. 1. s.c. 6 N. W. Eep. 568. 144 EEMOVAL OF FIXTURES. [Book: I. fully annexed property passes to the purchaser.^ And the owner of the land cannot, by agreement between himself and another, make that which is in its nature land, personal property, as against a subsequent purchaser for value without notice, there having been no actual severance of the soil when the subsequent grant was made.^ Thus it was held by the Supreme Court of Kansas in the case of Rowand v_. Anderson ^ that a fence built by one person upon the land of another, under a parol license or agreement that it might be removed at the will of the builder, becomes a fixture which will pass with a grant of the land to a hona fide purchaser without notice of the adverse title to such fence.* Sec. 146. Removal of fixtures.— As between landlord and tenant, the right to' remove fixtures depends upon the intention to annex. ^ Where fixtures are annexed by the tenant for the purposes of trade, or some other immediate or temporary use, or for ornament or furniture,® he may ' Fryatt v. The Sullivan Co., 5 HiU (N. Y.) 116 ; aff'd 7 Hill (N. Y.) 539. See : Peirce v. Gtoddard, 39 Mass. (23 Pick.) 559 ; s.o. 33 Am. Deo. 764; Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y. 378 ; S.C. 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 343 ; Ford V. Cobb, 30 N. Y. 344. ^ Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano & Fertilizer Co., 83 N. Y. 476. ' 33 Kan. 264 ; s.c. 6 Pac. Kep. 255. * See : Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375; s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 675 ; Dostal V. McCaddon, 33 Iowa 318 ; Smith V. Carroll, 4 G. Greene (la.) 146 ; Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ; Houx V. Seat, 36 Mo. 178 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 203 ; Haven v. Emery, 38 N. H. 63 ; Powers V. Dennison, 30 Vt. 753 ; Wesootfc V. Delano, 30 Wis. 514. 5 Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634 ; Hill V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271 ; s.c. 91 Am. Deo. 238 ; Pyle V. Pennock, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 517. See : Foster v. Maybe, 4 Ala. 402 ; s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 749 ; Hunt V. MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508; s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 300; Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 418 ; s.o. 17 Am. Dec. 680, 686. positive act necessary to change nat- ure of chattel. — It is said in the case of Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St. 558, that TeafE v. Hew- itt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634, "is not in conflict with the case of HiU v. Went- worth, 28 Vt. 438, holding that to change the character of an article from a chattel to a fixt- ure there should be some posi- tive act and intent to that effect on the part of the person an- nexing it to the building, and if the intent is in doubt, upon an inspection of the property itself, taking into consideration its nature, the mode, extent, and purpose of its annexation, it should be held to be personal property." • Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch. (Md.) 384 ; s.o. 23 Am. Dec. 336 ; Holmes v. Tremper, 20 John. (N. Y.) 129 ; s.o. 11 Am. Dec. 238 ; Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 193 ; s.o. 38 Am.Dec.290; Chap. IV. § 146.] REMOVAL OF nXTUEES. 145 remove them during the continuance of his original term,i qj. g^^^j^ further period of possession by him as he holds the premises under the right to still consider him- self a tenant, 2 when he can do so without material in jury- to the freehold ; ^ hut if he fails to do so and quits without any special agreement with his landlord respect- ing them, neither he nor his assignee can afterwards claim such fixtures as against the owner of the land or his grantee ;* and this is true whether the lease is ter- Hunt V. MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ; s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 300. See- Hayes v. N. Y. Mining Co., 3 Colo. 273 ; Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn. 323 ; Mason v. Fenn, 13 lU. 525 ; Griffin v. RansdeU, 71 Ind. 440 ; AUen V. Kennedy, 40 Ind. 142 ; Dostal V. McCaddon, 35 Iowa 318; Thomas i;.Crout, 5 Bush (Ky.)B7 ; Dingley v. Buflum, 57 Me. 381 ; Davis V. Buflfum, 51 Me. 160 ; Bliss V. "Whitney, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 114; s.c. 85 Am. Dec. 745; Shepard v. Spaulding, 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 416 ; Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 193 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 390; Powell V. McAsham, 28 Mo. 70 ; Kuhlmann v. Meier, 7 Mo. App. 360; State V. EUiot, 11 N. H. 540 ; Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. (19 Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 421; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 323 • Haflic'k V. Stober, 11 Ohio St. 482; Davis V. Moss, 38 Pa. St. 346 ; White V. Amdt, 1 Whai-t. (Pa.) 91; Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 124 ; Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591 ; s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 174 ; Pitt V. Shew, 4 Barn. & Aid. 306 ; s.c. 6 Eng. C. L. 453 ; Davis V. Jones, 2 Barn. & Aid. 165; Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 3 Barn. & C. 76 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 42 ; Lyde v. Russell, 1 Barn. & Aid. 394 ; s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 533 ; Wilde V. Waters, 16 C. B. 637 ; 8.C. 81 Eng. C. L. 637 ; 10 Heap V. BM-ton, 13 C. B. 374; S.C. 74 Eng. C. L. 273 ; Leader v. Homewood, 5 C. B. N. S. 546 ; S.C. 27 L. J. C. P. 316 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 1062 ; 94 Eng. C. L. 544; Hallen v. Runder, 1 Cromp. N. & R. 266 ; Penton v. Robart, 3 East 88 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 376 ; Pugh V. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 636: Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & ' W. 14; Mackintosh v. Trotter, 3 Mees. & W. 184 ; MinshaU v. Lloyd, 2 Mees. & W. 450; Rofifey V. Henderson, 17 Q. B. 574 ; s.c. 79 Eng. C. L. 573 ; Lee V. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 188-191 ; s.c. 3 Marsh. 495 ; 2 Eng. C. L. 320. « Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478 ; s.c. 6 Am. St. Rep. 467; 13 Atl. Rep. 370 ; 16 Id. 301. » StockweU V. Marks, 17 Me. 455 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 266. * Stookwell V. Marks, 17 Me. 455 ; S.C. 35 Am. Dec. 266 ; Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 192 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 290; Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 2 Bam. & C. 76 ; S.O. 9 Eng. C. L. 43 ; Lee V. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 188 ; s.c. 3 Marsh. 495 ; 2 Eng. C. L. 320. See : Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59 ; Moore v. Smith, 24 lU. 513 ; Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49 ; Dostal?;. McCaddon, 35 Iowa 318 ; Sullivan v. Carberry, 67 Me. 531 ; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Canton Co. of Baltimore, 30 Md. 347 ; Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571 ; s.c. 36 Am. Rep. 694 ; Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 196 ; 146 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. [BOOK I. minated by the lapse of time, or breach, or re-entry on forfeiture.^ But the forfeiture must be judicially ascer- tained.^ This rule finds its reason in the fact that the annexation of a chattel to a freehold by a tenant is regarded as a conditional gift to the landlord, which may be defeated by its subsequent removal during the term, but which becomes absolute if the premises are surrendered without its having been first severed and removed.^ The reason for this is because the interest, right, and title of a tenant, whatever they may be in and to the premises, terminate absolutely on his going out of possession at or after the expiration of his term, and any subsequent re-entry, even under another demise from the same landlord, will not relate back to or revive the right which was forfeited by a failure to exercise this right at the proper time.* Sec. 147. Same— Exceptions to the rule. —This rule always applies when the term is of certain duration, as under a lease for a term of years, which contains no Hanrahan v. O'EeiUy, 102 Mass. Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 129 ; 201 ; Kutter v. Smith, 69 U. S. (3 Wall.) Bainway v. Cobb, 99 Mass. 457, 491 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 830 ; 459; J7a;j)arfe Ames, 1 Low. C.C. 561 ; Talbot V. Wliipple, 96 Mass. (14 s.o. 6 Nat. Bank Peg. 235 ; Allen) 181 ; Lyde v. RusseU, 1 B. & Ad. 394 ; Bliss V. Whitney, 91 Mass. (9 s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 533 ; Allen) 114, 115 ; Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c. WaU V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 6 Rev. Rep. 376 ; 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ; MinshaU v. Lloyd, 2 Mees. & W. Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 450 ; 40 ; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 757 ; Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368. Shepard v. Spaulding, 45 Mass. ' Whipley v. Dewey, 8 Cal. 36 ; (4 Met.) 416 ; Pugh v. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 636 ; 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 311 ; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19 W. 14.. Pick.) 314 ; ' Keough v. Daniell, 12 Wis. 163. Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 433 ; » McCraoken v. Hall, 7 Ind. 30 ; Crippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 23, Gaffleld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. 31 ; (17 Pick.) 193 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. 390; (9 Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 421 ; 323 ; , Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St. (3 Stockt.) 29 ; 483 ; Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ; White v. Amdt, 1 Whart. (Pa.) s.c. 6 Am. Rep. 173 : 91. Reynolds^. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N.Y.) * See : Shepard v. Spaulding, 45 333 ; Mass. (4 Met.) 416 ; Davis V. Moss, 38 Pa. St. 346 ; Ante, § 137. Chap. IV. § 147.] EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. 147 special provisions in regard to fixtures, but where the term is uncertain, or depends upon a contingency — as where a party is in as tenant for life or at will-^the fixtures may be removed within a reasonable time after the .tenancy is determined.^ Where a lease has been given by an agent without sufficient authority, during the absence of the owner, and is terminated by the owner on his return, the lessee becomes a tenant at sufferance, and will be entitled to remove any fixtures he may have put upon the premises within a reasonable time after such termination.^ And where a tenant has been restrained by an injunction from removing fixtures placed by him upon the estate during his tenancy, and such injunction is afterwards dissolved, the tenant will have a reasonable time within which to remove the fixtures after the dis- solution.* ' Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Ellis v. Paige, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571, 575 ; 43, 49 ; B.C. 26 Am. Rep. 694, 697. Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 r See : Sullivan v. Carberry, 67 Me. s.o. 6 Am. Rep. 173 ; 531 • Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St.483 Cooper V. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108 ; Martin v. Roe, 7 E. & B. 287 Antonir. Belknap, 102 Mass. 193 ; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 286. Doty V. Gorham, 22 Mass. (5 ^ Antoni v. Belknap, 102 Mass. 193 Pick.) 487, 490; s.c. 16 Am. Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Dec. 417 ; Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571, 575 ■ Whiting V. Brastow, 31 Mass. s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 694, 697. (4: Pick.) 310, 311 ; ' See : Mason v. Fenn, 13 111. 535 ^ Bircher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 118. BOOK IT, TENURES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Sec. 148. English origin of our institutions. Sec. 149. Same — ^English common and statute law. Sec. 150. Teutonic origin and English institutions. Sec. 151. Same — ^The feudal system. Section 148. English origin of our institutions. —Our laws and institutions are not wholly of our own making, the foundations were brought over by our English ancestors from the parent country. The soil upon which the English colonies were planted in America was derived from the crown through royal grants/ and every form of political government set up in the colonies rested upon royal charters.^ The earliest form of direct legislative control to which the colonies were subjected was in the form of ordinances or instructions, for their guidance, emanating, not from the law-making power of the king in par- liament, but from the ordaining power of the king in council.^ In the internal organization of these colonies they were essentially the same as that of the mother country. The unit of the constitutional monarchy was the borough or township ; upon the township was founded the county, composed of several townships similarly organized ; and of several counties similarly ' See Narrative and Critical History ' Taylor's Orig. & Gr. Eng. Const of U. S., vol. VI. p. 3. pt. I., p. 25. * 1 Storr on Const., chs. II.-XVII. 148 Chap. I. § 150.] TEUTONIC ORIGIN OF INSTITUTIONS. 149 organized states were formed ; and of these states, first a Federation and then a Union. ^ This process of state- building was the same as that pursued by the Teutonic conquerors of Britain in building up what afterwards became the English kingdom. ^ Sec. 149. Same— English common and statute law.— Not only did our forefathers build up the original thirteen states and the colonial federation in the same manner in which the Teutonic conquerors of Britain had built up the English kingdom, but they either had forced upon them by royal charters, or adopted of their own choice, the principles of the common and statute law of the mother country as it existed at the time.^ In fact they regarded these as much a part of their heritage as the language they spoke or the religion they cherished.* Particularly was this true in regard to the laws relating to and regulating real property.^ To the common law and the statutes brought over with them, the colonists added afterwards a few English statutes enacted sub- sequent to their emigration to this country.^ Sec. 160. Teutonic origin of English institutions.—It will thus be seen that the constitutional history of our institutions does not begin with the landing of our Eng- lish forefathers in America in the seventeenth century, but with the landing of the English in Britain, in the 1 De Tocqueville's "Democracy in Doe ex d. Patterson t-. Winn, 30 America," vol. I., p. 49. U. S. (5 Pet.) 333, 241 ; bk. 8 L. = Taylor's Orig. & Gr. Eng. Const., ed. 108, 111 ; p. 27. To\vn of Pawlet v. Clark, 13 U. S. 3 OUVER, J., in Baker v. Mattocks, (9 Cr.) 293 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 375. Quincy (Mass.) 73. ' Sackett v. Sackett, 25 Mass. (8 * See: Helms-y. May,29 Ga.121,134 ; Pick.) 309, 315, 318 ; Commonwealth v. Chapman, 54 Marshall v. Fisk, 6 Mass. 24, 31 ; Mass. (13 Met.) G8, 69 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 76, 79 ; Marshall ■;;. Fisk, Mass. 24, 31 ; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 76, 79 ; Mass. 535 ; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 3 Baker ti. Mattocks, Qmncy (Mass.) Mass. 530, 535 ; 72. . ^r o m Commonwealth 1;. Leach, 1 Mass. « Morris v. Vanderen, 1 U. b. (1 60, 61 ; Dall.) 64 : bk. 1 L. ed. 38 ; Baker w. Mattocks, Quincy (Mass.) Boehm v. Engle, 1 U. S. (1 DaU.) 73 . 15; bk. 1 L. ed. 17. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U. S. (8 See : Blankard v. Galdy, 4 3lod. Pet.).':::;i, 415-418 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 322. 1055 ; 150 THE FEUDAL SYSTEM. [Book II. fifth century,^ when the conquerors of Britain, as M. Taine puts it, "created a Grermany outside of Ger- many, " ^ bringing with them their language, their cus- toms, their religion, and their laws. These customs and laws were incorporated into the civil polity of the new nation, and were the foundation of those principles and laws which our forefathers imported and copied after. The laws and the customs of the victorious Germans were what we now know as the " feudal system." Sec. 151. Same— The feudal system.— Our theory regard- ing the rights of private property in land, and the foundation of many of the laws governing such property, have their origin in the feudal system, and for this rea- son a general survey of that system, and of the laws and institutions it gave rise to, becomes important in our study of the law relating to real property in this country, because, as Chief Justice Tilghman says in the case of Lyle V. Eichards,^ "the principles of the feudal system arc so interwoven with our jurisprudence that there is no moving them without destroying the whole texture." Both ancient English tenures and modern English tenures, upon which the doctrine of tenures as it exists in this country to-day is founded, are derived from and the outgrowths of the feudal system. For this reason it is thought best to here give a concise statement of the feudal system, as well as of ancient English tenures.* ' See: Freeman, "The English Freeman's " Norman Conquest ; " People in its Three Homes," p. Freeman's " The English People 360 ; ■ in its Three Homes ; " Taylor's Orig. &Gr. Eng. Const., Green's "History of the English p. 15. People ; " 2M. Taine'sHist. Eng. Lit.,vol. I., Hallam's "Constitutional His- p. 50. tory ; " ^OSerg. &R. (Pa.) 333. Hallam's "History of the Mid- ^ We cannot enter into a full dis- die Ages ;" cussion of this interesting and Palgrave's " English Common- important subject in this place. wealth ; " Those who wish to pursue a Palgrave's " Normandy and Eng- study of the subject at length land ; " will find valuable assistance in Pollock's ' ' History of the Science the following worts : of Politics ; " Freeman's "Comparative Poll- Stubb's " Constitutional History tics ; " of England ; " Freeman's " Growth of the Eng- Taylor's "Origin and Growth of li=!h Constitution ; " the English Constitution." CHAPTEE 11. THE FEUDAL LAW. Sec. 153. Sources of the English law. Sec. 153. Origin of feudal government. Sec. 154. France and Clovis. Sec. 155. Same — Riparian Franks. Sec. 156. Same— Theodosian Code. Sec. 157. Same — Introduction of feuds. Sec. 158. Same — Laws of Normandy. Sec. 159. Establishment of feudal tenures. Sec. 160. Sauae — Origin and growth of feudal customs. Sec. 161. Same — Military services. Sec. 162. Same — The German Comites. Sec. 163. Same— Allodial tenures. Sec. 164. Same — Consuetudines feudorem. Sec. 165. Definition of feuds. Sec. 166. Kinds of feuds — Proper and improper. Sec. 167. Same — Ligium and non-ligium. Sec. 168. Same — Feudum antiquum and feudum novum. Sec. 169. Same — Feudum nobile and feudum dignitatis. Sec. 170. Investiture of feuds. Sec. 171. Same — Improper or symbolical vestiture. Sec. 172. Same — Breve testatum. Sec. 173. Fealty— Oath of. Sec. 174. Homage — Ceremony of. Sec. 175. Duties of lord and vassal Sec. 176. Feudal aids. Sec. 177. Estate of vassal. Sec. 178. Alienation of feuds. Sec. 179. S:^me — Subinfeudation. Sec. 180. Estate of the lord. Sec. 181. The lord's obligation on vassal's eviction. Sec. 182. Descent of feuds. Sec. 183. Same — Feudum taUiatum. Sec. 184. Same — Distinguished from succession under Roman law. Sec. 185. Investiture upon descent. Sec. 186. Same — Relevium. Sec. 187. Escheat of feuds. Sec. 188. Forfeiture of feuds. Sec. 189. Forfeiture of seigniory. Sec. 190. Feudal jurisdiction. 151 152 SOURCES OF ENGLISH LAW. [Book II. Section 152. Soiirees of the English law. — It has been established beyond all question that the laws of England are derived from those of northern nations, who, migrat- ing from the forests of Germany, overturned the Eoman Empire, and established themselves in the southern part of Europe. The Danes and the Saxons were beyond all question swarms from the northern hive. It may be presumed that the description which Tacitus has left us of the manners and customs of the Germans is applicable also to them. The Saxons, on their establishment in England, adopted but a small portion of the laws of the Britons, and exterminated, rather than subdued, the ancient inhabitants, introducing their own laws rather than adopting those which prevailed among the Brit- Sec 153. Origin of feudal government. — Before the northern hordes sallied forth from their home to conquer the world, they were not subject to the government of kings ; ^ even where monarchical government had been established, the prince possessed but little authority, and was a general rather than a king. His military com- mand was extensive, but his civil jurisdiction almost nothing.^ The army which these men led was not com- posed of soldiers who could be compelled to serve, but of such men as voluntarily followed his standard.* These soldiers conquered not for their leader, but for them- selves ; and being free in their own country, they renounced not their liberty when they acquired new ter- ritory and made nevv^ settlements. They did not exter- minate the inhabitants of the countries which they subdued, but seized the greater part of the lands, and took the people under their protection. The difficulty of maintaining a new conquest, as well as the danger of being attacked by new invaders as barbarous and fero- cious as themselves, rendered it necessary to be always ' Montesquieu says that it is impossi- tions. 2Montesqu. Spirit of L. ble to liave any tolerable notion (10th ed. , Edinburgh), bk.30, c. of the French political law, un- xix, p. 337. less we are thoroughly ac- ' Csesar, lib. VI. , o. 28. quainted with the laws and ^ Tacitus, De Mor. Germ. o. 7, 11. manners of the German na- * Cassar, lib. VI., c. 33. Chap. II. § 154.] ORIGIN OF FEUDAL GOVERNMENT. 153 in a posture of defense. The form of government which they established was altogether military, and resembled as nearly as possible that which they had been ac- customed to in their northern home. Their general still continued to be the head of the people, and a part of 'the conquered lands were allotted to him ; the remainder, under the name of beneficia or fiefs, were divided among his principal officers. As the common safety required that these officers should, upon all occasions, be ready to appear in arms, for the common defense, and should also continue obedient to the commands of their general, they bound themselves to take the field when called upon, and to serve him with a number of men, in proportion to the extent of their territory. These officers again parceled out their lands among their followers and annexed to their grant the same condition. Thus it was that a feudal kingdom was properly the encampment of a great army. Military ideas predominated every walk of life, military subordination was established, and the possession of the lands and the profit derived therefrom was the pay which soldiers received for their personal service. ^ Sec. 154. Trance and Clovis.— The French nation de- rived their origin from a tribe of Germans under Clovis, who crossed the Rhine about the year A. D. 481, and established themselves in the northern provinces of that countiy. The different German tribes were first governed by codes of laws formed by their respective chiefs. One of the most ancient of these is the Salic Law, which is generally supposed to have been written in the fifth century.^ 1 See : 1 Robertson's Hist. Scot. (17tli ed.) 213, et seq. 2 The Salic law is the name of a code of laws framed by tlie Salians, a tribe of Germans who settled in Gaul under Phara- mond. This law is remarkable principally for its provisions in relation to succession, by which males alone inherited the lands or succeeded to the crown of France. De terra vero salica nulla portio hsereditatis transit in mulierem, sed hoc virilis sextus acquirit ; hoc est, filii in ipsa haereditate seccundunt. See : Hallam's Middle Ages (Jlur- ray's ed. of 1878), vol. I., Dp. 47, 147-149, 278, 279, 280 ; Hume's Hist. Eng. (Worthing- ton-s ed. 1880), vol 2, p. ISl ; Maine's " Ancient Law," p. 152. Same— The futile effort to introduce the Salic law into England by Henry IV. is fully set out by Hume. 3 Hume's Hist. Eng. (Worthington's ed. 1880). 15i INTRODUCTION OF FEUDS. [BoOK IL Sec. 156. Same — Eiparian Franks.— After the Franks had quitted their country they made a compilation of the Sahc laws, with the assistance of the Sagas of their own nation, and having joined themselves under Clovis ^ to the Salians, preserved their original customs ; which Theodoric, King of Austrasia, caused them to reduce into writing ; ^ and also collected the last of those Bavarians and Germans who were dependent upon his kingdom. Charlemagne was the first who reduced the Saxons, and gave them the law still extant.^ Sec. 156. Same— Theodosian Code.— While Clovis and his descendants governed France, that country was ruled hy the Theodosian Code and the laws of the different Grerman tribes who had settled there. The Theodosian Code was in the course of time abrogated or forgotten by reason of the fact that greater advantages were allowed to those who lived under the Salic law. During the reign of the first French monarchs a general assembly of the nation took place each year, either in the month of March or in the month of May, at which time many ordinances were made which acquired the force of law, and were known as Capitularii* Sec. 157. Same— introduction of feuds.— A variety of regulations inconsistent with the ancient code of laws was produced by the introduction of feuds ; and France was at that time divided into an infinite number of small seigniories whose lords acknowledged a feudal dependency ' See : Gregory of Tours, passim. may be found in Caciani's ool- ^ See : Prologue to the laws of the lection entitled " Barbarorum Bavarians and to the Saliclaw. Legis Antique," 5 vols. fol. Leibnitz says, in his " Origin of Venetiis, 1781-5. The early cus- the Franks," that this law was toms and laws of the northern made before the reign of Clovis; nations maybe inferred with but it cannot have been before tolerable certainty from the the Franks quitted their Ger- " Jus Commune Norvegicum," man home, because they did a compilation made in the year not at that time understand 1274 by the order of the king, the Latin tongue. See : 8 Mon- out of the then existing codes tesque. Spirit of L. (10th ed. in the realm, and published at Edmburgh), lib. XXVIII., c. 1 Copenhagen in 1817 in 1 vol. p. 306, et seq. 4to. ^Montesqu. Spirit of L. (10th Edin- ■■ 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) burgh ed.) 206, et seq. 2, §§ 6 and 7. The codes referred to tiy Montesqu. Chap. II. § 158.] THE NOEMAN LAWS. I55 only on the monarchy, not a political one. By reason of this it became impossible that they should all be regulated by the same laws. The codes of the Grermans and the Capitularii of the Salines were both superseded by the local customs, and each seigniory and province had its own rules and regulations ; and there were scarce two seigniories in the whole kingdom whose customs agreed in every particular. 1 Several of these customs were col- lected and published in the course of the fifteenth century under the direction of the king of France, and authen- ticated by the most eminent lawyers and magistrates of the different provinces, but they had in general been put in writing by private individuals long before that period.^ Sec. 158. Same— Laws of ITormandy.— Normandy, like other provinces of France, was governed by its own pecu- liar customs. When it was ceded to Eollo, the Norse leader, in the year 912, he caused an inquiry to be made into its ancient usages and added his sanction to their former authority. Normandy did not experience those troubles and revolutions which disturbed the other parts of France during the tenth and eleventh centuries, and as a consequence the original laws and customs of the Franks were preserved there with more purity, and suf- fered less from a mixture of the canon and civil law than in any other province of France.^ Upon the establishment of the Normans in England the customary law of Nor- mandy, which had been already reduced to writing, was introduced and established there. The kings of England, at the time having great possessions in France, frequently visited that country for two centuries after the conquest, and borrowed from the French many of the improve- ments which were made in the French jurisprudence and established them in England. From this it will be seen that the primeval customs of the Grermans and the codes of their different tribes,* together with the laws of the > 3 Montesquieu's Spirit of L. (10th * In legibus Henrici I. Regis Edinburgh ed.) 219. Anglias, multa reperio e Lege * 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) 3, Salioa deprompta ; interdum 8 9. nominatim interdum verbatim. " See : Howard's Lit. Pref. Spelman s Gloss, voc. Lex. 156 FEUDAL TENURES ESTABLISHED. [Book IL Germans during the middle ages, the Capitularii of the French monarchs of the first two races, and the customs of the different provinces of Normandy, are tlio real sources from which the English ancient laws can with certainty be deduced.^ Sec. 159. Establishment of feudal tenures.— In the ninth and tenth centuries there were only two tenures, or modes of holding land upon the continent of Europe, to wit : the allodial and the feudal. Allodial lands were those whereof the owner had the dominium directum et verum, the complete and absolute property, free from all service of any particular lord,^ so that the owner could dispose of it at his pleasure or transmit it as an inheritance to his children.^ A feud was a tract of land acquired by the voluntary and gratuitous donation of a superior, and held on the condition of fidelity and certain services which were in general of a military nature.* The tenure of the feudatory was of a preca- rious kind, depending entirely upon the will and pleasure of the person who granted it.^ With these ideas and under this policy of government, the Germans made conquests. When they acquired a province, the land became the property of the victorious tribe, and each individual laid claim to a certain share of it. A tract of ground was accordingly marked out for the leader ' See : 1 Cruise, Eeal Prop. (4th ed.), §§ 10-13. » 2 Bl. Com. 105. Quod est vere, simpUoissime, et absolutissime Alaudium, nativa sua naturalis juris libeitate, originaliter et perpetuo gau- dens ; nuUis unquam hominis, servituti aut reoognitioni sub- ditum. Dumoulin (give Moli- nEBUs), Consuet. Paris, tit. I., §1.1. ^ See : Dumoulin, In Consuet. Parisien. tit. 1, § 67 ; Id. Opera, torn. 1, p. 658. * 2 BI. Com. 105. See : Wallace v. Harmstead, 44 Pa. St. 499. ' No private property in land among early Germans. — We learn from C»sar and Tacitus that the individual German had no private property in land ; that it was liis nation or tribe vrhich allovsred liim annually a por- tion of ground for his support ; that the ultimate property, or dominium verum of the lands, was vested in the tribe ; and that the portions dealt out to individuals returned to the public, after they had reaped the fruits of them (Caesar de Bello Gal., lib. 6, c. 21 ; Tacitus, De Mor. Germ., c. 26). Thus Tacitus says : Agri pro numero cultorum ab universis per vices occupantur, quos mox inter se secundum dignationem par- tiuntur. Facilitatem partiendi .camporum spatia prsestant ; arva per annos mutant, et su- perest ager. Tacitus, De Mor. Germ., o. 26. Chap. II. § 160.] FEUDAL CUSTOMS— ORIGIN. 15( of the expedition, and to his inferiors were given por- tions corresponding to their respective merits and im- portance. The lands thus given became the permanent property of the occupiers. ^ Sec. 160. Same — Origin and growth of feudal customs. — The situation of the German tribes in conquered prov- inces being at first extremely precarious, the necessity of defense induced the chiefs to annex to each grant or allotment of land a condition of military service, for the mutual protection of the tribe in the conquered province.^ This allotment of land was originally made to in- dividuals of the German tribe on their first establishment in a conquered country, as mere beneficia or feuds, and many have thence derived the origin of the feudal law. Whether this be correct or not we will not stop to inquire, but may remark that it is universally ad- mitted that feuds were originally voluntary and gratu- itous donations to be held at the mere will of the giver, who could resume them at pleasure.^ When the Ger- mans first settled in the southern parts of Europe, they enjoyed a very great degree of liberty ; and upon the distribution of the lands in a conquered province, each individual claimed that portion of them to which his rank and services entitled him, not as a favor, but as a right, being the just reward of his toils. Nor can it be supposed that a people who did not conquer for their ' See : 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) 4, §§ 16, 17. ' See : 1 Robertson's Hist. Scot. (17th ed.) 215,254. ' Spence on benefices. — Although this declaration is found in the Book of Feuds, Mr. Spence, in his "Equable Jurisdiction of Courts of Chancery," vol. I., pp.44 to 46, maintains that it is contradicted by Anglo-Saxon history, as far as any authentic records extend, and is not con- firmed by the early documents or history of any other nations. He admits that the Anglo- Saxon lords, like those on the continent of Europe, did in some cases grant benefices re- vocable at pleasure, or for a term short of the hfe of the beneficiary, or only for his Ufe ; but lie declares that nothing is found in any early documents to show that they did not, from the very first, make grants of transmissible or hereditary ben- efices. He cites document- ary instances of such grants, in the times of the Saxon princes, in England, Scotland, and France, which he declares did not countenance tlie opinion of the Master of Rolls in Bur- gess V. "Wheate, 1 Eden 193, where it is said that the intro- duction of the power of aliena- tion was an era in the history of benefices. 158 MILITARY SERVICES. [Book II. chiefs only, but also for themselves, should submit to hold their acquisitions as the voluntary and gratuitous donations of their leader, and on so precarious a tenure as his will and pleasure.^ Sec. 161. Same— Military-services. — The feudal system was not generally established till some centuries after the settlement of the German tribes in Italy and France ; nor did the circumstances of annexing a condition of military service to a grant of lands imply that they were held by a feudal tenure, for the possessors of allodial property, who were in France called Libeii Homines, were bound to the performance of military service.^ The original idea of feuds appears to have ' See : 1 Robertson's Hist. Char. V. (11th ed., 8vo) 254. Conquests and booty of German tribes common property. — Robertson says that the German tribes considered their conquests as a common property, in which all had a title to share, as all had contributed to acquire them. 1 Hist. Char. V. (Uth ed.) 14. He gives as an illustration a remarkable instance in the history of the Franks, which shows that the king himself had no part of the booty gained by the army, except that which he acquired by lot. The army of Clovis, the founder of the French monarchy, having plundered a church, carried off, among other sacred uten- sUs, a vase of extraordinary size and beauty. The bishop sent deputies to Clovis, be- seeching him to restore the vase, that it might be again employed in the sacred services to whicli it had been conse- crated. Clovis desired the dep- uties to follow him to Sois- sons, as the booty was to be divided in that place, and prom- ised, that if the lot should give him the disposal of the vase, he would grant what the bishop desired. When he came to Soissons, and all the booty was placed in one great heap in the middle of the army, Clovis entreated, that before making the division, they would give him that vase over and above his sliare. All ap- peared willing to gratify the king, and to comply with his request, when a fierce and haughty soldier lifted up his battle-ax, and sti'iking the vase with the utmost violence, cried out with a loud voice, " You shall receive nothing here but that to which the lot gives you aright." See : Greg. Turon. Hist. Fran- corum, Ub. 11, c. 37, p. 70, par. IGIO. ^Deriving "allodium" from "los." — Some of the French writers, and among them M. Bouquet the historian, derive the word allo- dium from los, wliich signifies lot, and from this etymology conclude tliat allodial property was that which was acquired by lot upon the distribution of lands among the Fi'anks. See: Bouquet, Droit Pub. ; Sismondi, Hist, des Francais, torn 3, 319. Division of conquested land. — Robertson says in his History of Charles V. (17th ed.), pp. 256- 258, that "upon settling in the countries which they had subdued, the victorious troops divided the conquered lands. Whatever portion of them feU to a soldier, he seized as the recompense due to his valor, as a settlement acquired by his own sword. He took possession of it as a Chap. II. § 161.] THE COMITES. 159 grown up from the necessity of concerted action in defending themselves and the allotment of lands in conquered provinces,^ as heretofore set out.^ freeman in full propertj'. He enjoyed it during his own life, and could dispose of it at pleas- ure, or transmit it as an inher- itance to his children. Thus property in land became fixed. It was at the same time allo- dial, i. e., the possessor had the entire right of property and dominion ; he held of no sov- ereign or superior lord, to whom he was bound to do homage and perform service. But as these new proprietors were in some danger of being dis- turbed by the remainder of the ancient inhabitants, and in still greater danger of being attacked by successive colonies of barbarians as fierce and ra- pacious as themselves, they saw the necessity of coming under obligations to defend the com- munity, more explicit than those to whicli they had been subject in their original habita- tions. On this account, imme- diately upon their fixing in their new settlements, every freeman became bound to take arms in defense of the com- munity, and, if he refused or neglected to do so, he was liable to a considerable penalty. I do not mean that any con- tract of this kind was formally concluded, or mutually by any legal solemnity. It was estab- lished by tacit consent, like the other compacts which hold society together. Their mut- ual security and preservation made it the interest of all to recognize its authority, and to ' Tacitns on the Comites. — Tacitus tells us that the chief men among the Germans endeavor- ed to attach to their persons and interests certain adherents whom they called Comites, Insignis nobilitas, aut magna patrum merita, principis digna- tionem etiam adolescentibus adsignant. Caeteri robustiori- bus ac jampridem probatis aggregantur ; nee rubor inter enforce the observation of it. We can trace back this new obligation on the proprietors of land to a very early period in the history of the Franks. Chilperic, who began his reign A. D. 562, exacted a fine ban- nos jussit exigi, from certain persons who had refused to accompany him in an expedi- tion. Greg. Turon., lib. V., c. 26, p. 211. Ghildebert, who began his reign A. D. 576, pro- ceeded in the same manner against others who had been guilty of a like crime. Id., lib. VII., c. 42, p. D43. Such a fine could not have been exact- ed while property continued in its first state, and the mili- tary service was entirely voluntary. Charlemagne or- dained, that every freeman who possessed five mansi, i. e., acres of land, in property, sixty should march in person against the enemy. Capiful., A. D. .807. Louis le Debonnaire, A.D. 815, granted lands to certain Spaniards who fied from the Saracens, and allowed them to settle in his territories, on the condition that they should serve in the army like other freemen. Capitul., vol. I., p. 500. By land possessed in prop- erty, which is mentioned in the law of Charlemagne, we are to understand, according to the style of that age, allodial land ; alodes and proprietas, aloduin and proprium, being words per- fectly synonymous. DuCange voce Alodis. The clearest comites aspici. Gradus quin- etiam et ipse comitus habet, judicio ejus, quem sectantur ; magnaque et comitum semula- tio, quibus primus apud prinoi- pem suum locus ; et principum cui plurimi et acerrimi comites. Hsec dignitas, haa vires, magno semper electorum juvenum globo circumdari ; in pace decus, in bello presidium. 'See -.Ante, §153. 160 THE GERMAN COMITES. [Book II. Sec. 162. Same— The German Comites.— The custom that grew up among the northern hordes of attaching adherents to their persons and interests, was continued by the German princes in their new settlements made in France and elsewhere. These comites or attendants were called Vassi, Antrustiones, Lendes, Homines in truste regis. These persons were all of much more exalted position than the ordinary freemen, so that we find that the composition paid for the murder of a person of this description was triple that paid for the murder of a common freeman.^ While the German tribes re- proof of the distinction between allodial and benefioiarjr pos- session is contained in two charters published by Muratori, by which it appears that a per- son might possess one part of his estate as aUodial, which he could dispose of at pleasure, the other as beneficium, of which he had only the usufruct, the property returning to the superior lord on his demise. Antiq. Ital. Medii ^vi, vol. I., pp. 559, 565. The same dis- tinction is pointed out in a Capitularia of Charlemagne, A. D. 813, edit. Baluz. toI. I., p. 491. Count Everard, who married a daughter of Louis le Debonnaire, in the curious testament by which he dis- poses of his vast estate among liis children, distinguishes be- tween what he possessed pro- prietate, and what he held beneficio ; and it appears that the greater part was allodial. A. D. 837. Aub. Mir»ri Opera Diplomatica, Lovan. 1733. Vol. I., p. 19. Liber homo and Vassus — Obliga- tion to serve superior. — In the same manner Liber homo is commonly opposed to Vassus or Vassalus ; the former denotes an allodial proprietor, the lat- ter one who held of a superior. These freemen were under an obligation to serve the state ; and this duty was considered as so sacred, that freemen were prohibited from entering into holy orders, unless they had obtained the consent of the sovereign. The reason gi^'en for this in the statute is re- markable, " For we are in- formed that some do so not so much out of devotion, as in order to avoid that military service which they are bound to perform." Capitul. lib. I., § 114. If, upon being summoned into the field, any man refused to obey, a full herebannum,i.e., a fine of sixty crowns, was to be exacted from him according to the law of the Franks. Capit. Car. Magn. ap. Leg. Longob., lib. I., tit. 14, § 13, p. 639. This expression, accord- ing to the law of the Franks, seems to imply that both the obligation to serve, and the penalty on those who disre- garded it, were coeval with the laws made by the Franks at their first settlement in Gaul. This fine was levied with such rigor, "that if any perecn convicted of this crime was insolvent, he was reduced to servitude, and continued in that state until such time as his labor should amount to the value of the herebannum." Ibid. The Emperor Lotharius render- ed the penalty still more severe ; and if any person, possessing such an extent of property as made it incumbent on him to take the field in person, refused to obey the summons, all his goods were declared to be for- feited, and he himself might be punished with banishment. Murat. Script. Ital., vol. I., pars, ii., p. 153. 3 Baluzius, capit. Reg. Francor. 898, 936, 938. Chap. II. § 162.] ORIGIN OF FEUDS. IGl mained in their northern home, the leaders or generals courted and preserved the favor of their comites by presents of arms and horses, and by hospitality.^ When they settled in other countries which they had conquered, portions of lands known by the name of Fiscus Regis,, or Domanium Regis, were allotted to the comites as a reward for their fidelity. These donations were origi- nally called benejicia, because they were gratuitous. In course of time they acquired the name of feud a. The persons to whom this kind of property was given were thereby subject to fidelity, and the performance of miltary services, to those from whom they had received the lands. ^ Montesquieu, Spirit L. (lOth ed., Edinburgh), lib. 30, c. 19, p.337. 'Tacitus says: "Exigunt (com- ites) prinoipis sui liberalitate ilium bellatorum equum, illam cruentam victricemque Tra- meam ; nam epulae, et quam- quam incompti, largi tamen apparatus pro stipendio ce- dunt." Tacitus, DeMor. Germ., c. 14. See : Du Cange, Gloss, voc. Fisous ; 1 Baluz. Capit. Reg. Francor. 453 ; 2 Id. 875. « See : 1 Cruise, Real Prop. 6, § 23. M. Bignon says in his notes on the "Formulae of Marcul- phus," that the "Proprietate et Fisco duae notanturbonorum species et velut maxima rerum divisio quae eo seculo recepta erat, omnia namque prcedia aut propria erant, aut fiscalia. Pro- pria seu proprietates dicebantur quae nullius juri obnoxia erant, sed Optimo maximo jure pos- sidebantur ; ideoque ad liKre- des transibant. Fiscalia vero, benetioia sive fisci vocabantur, quae a rege ut plurimum, post- caque ab .iliis, ita concede-- bantur, ut certis legibus ser- vitiisque obnoxia, cum vita accipientis finirentur." See : 2 Baluz. Capit. Reg. Fran- cor. 875. Huratori, the learned author of ' • Antiquitates Italioa Medii ^vi," gives us a dissertation on "Allodial and Feudal Tenures." He says that feuds 11 derived their origin from the Germans, and were oxiginally called hcnej'icia ; that the an- cient ras.si et Vunftali were l^ersons who attached them- selves to kings and princes in order to acquire the privileges which tliose who formed a part of their families were entitled tc, and also in the hope of ob- taining, from the liberality of their lords, heneficia ; tliat is, the usufruct of a portion of their royal demesnes, during the lives of their lords. That whenever a person of noble birth attached himself in this manner to a prince, ho then took an oath of fidelity to him and was afterwards called Vassus or VassaJus, which words occur in a Capitularium of Louis the Pious, enacted in the year 823 (See : Capit. Regum. Francor., lib. II., cc. IV., IX., XaIV., in Leges Bar- baror. antiquae, vol. 8, pp. 174, 175, 178). Tliat to constitute a vassus it was not necessary that he should have a benejichan ; that an allodium was an in- heritance which might be alienated at the pleasure of the possessor, and thattlie words by which it was granted usually were, " ut proprietario jure teneat atque possideat ; seu faciat inde quicquid voluerit, tam ipse quamque hasredes ipsius. See : Muratori, Antiq. Ital. Medii, lib. I., p. 345, Dissert. XL 162 ALLODIAL TENURES. [Book II. Sec. 163. Same— Allodial tenures.— Feuds were origin- ally granted by kings and princes only, yet in a short time the great lords to whom the kings had alloted ex- tensive tracts of land, partly from a disposition to imitate their superiors, and partly for the purpose of attaching persons to their particular fortunes, bestowed a portion of their demesnes as benefices or feuds. The greater part of the lands in Italy and France were, however, held by an allodial tenure, till the beginning of the tenth century, when the feudal system appears to have been generally adopted in those countries. Allodial property being much more desirable than feudal, such a change appears surprising ; especially when we know that allodial prop- erty was frequently converted into feudal by the volun- tary deed of the possessor. The reason which induced the proprietors of allodial lands to convert them into feuds has been thus explained: Those who held feuds were entitled to great privileges. The composition or fine for the commission of a crime against a feudatory was much greater than where against a person who held his lands by an allodial tenure. But the chief motive for this alteration was, to acquire the protection of some powerful lord, without which, in those times of anarchy and confusion, it was scarce possible for an individual to preserve either his liberty or his property. These, and probably other reasons with which we are unacquainted, produced an extension of the feudal tenure over the whole western world. ^ Sec. 164. Same — Consuetudines feudorem.— These ten- ures gave way to feuds, which, upon their first introduc- tion were regulated by unwritten customs. About the year llYO Emperor Frederick Barbarossa directed the code of the feudal law to be compiled, which was accord- ingly done and subsequently published at Milan. This compilation was called ' ' Consuetudines Feudorem, " and was divided into five books, of which the first two and some fragments of the last two are still in existence, and to be found at the end of the modern editions of the. 1 Herve, lib. I., p. 102. (10th ed., Edinburgh), lib. See : 3 Montesqu. Spirit of L. XXXI., c. 8, p. 330, et seq. Chap. II. §§ 165, 166.] DEFINITION OF FEUDS. 163 " Corpus Juris Civilis." This work is thought to be no more than a collection of the customs which prevailed most generally among the German tribes, and which were generally adhered to in feudal matters, together with the constitutions of the Emperors Lotharius, Conrad, and Frederick, respecting feuds. ^ Sec. 165. Definition of feuds.— A feud has been defined to be a tract of land held by a voluntary and gratuitous donation, on condition of fidelity, and certain services being rendered to a superior, from whom it was received.^ It was a benevolent or liberal concession or gift, supposed to have been originally granted from motives of mere benevolence, and not for any sum of money or other valuable consideration.^ Sec. 166. Kinds of feuds — Proper and improper. — The most general division of feuds is into proper and improper ones. A proper feud was such an one as was purely military, given militice gratia, without price, to persons duly qualified for military service. An improper feud was one which did not, in point of acquisition or service, strictly conform to the nature of a mere military feud ; such as those that were sold or bartered for any equiv- alent, or granted free of all service, or any consideration of any certain returns of service. A feud, was, however, always considered as a proper one unless the contrary ap- peared. That a feud was an improper one could only be shown by a reference to the original investiture. From this arose the maxim of the feudal law, tenor investitures ' See: Giannone, dell' Istor, part I., 3, who derives it from Regn. Nap.,lib. XIII.,c. 3, §3. earlier feudists. See Zasii, 2 2 Bl. Com. 105. Opera, torn. IV., p. 77. See : Wallace v. Harmstead, 44 ^ Feudum enim non sub prajtextu Pa. St. 499. " pecuniae, sed amore et honore Craig defines a feud as follows : Domini adquirendum est. Con- '• Est feudum benefioium, seu suet. Feud. lib. I., tit. 27. benevola et libera rei immo- Nothing but immovable prop- bills, aut sequipollentis, con- erty could be granted as a cessio, cum utUisdominii trans- feud. Sciendum est autem latione ; retenta proprietate, Feudum, sive Beneficium, seu dominio directo ; sub fide- nonnisi in rebus soli, aut solo litate et exhibitione servi- oohserentibus. aut in iis qui tiorum honestorum. See : Jus. inter immobilia connumeran- Feudale, lib. I., Dieg. 9, 5. tur — posse consistere. Zasii, This definition is copied by Opera, lib. II., tit. 1. Zasius, in Usus Feud. Epit., 164 KINDS OF FEUDS. [Book II. inspiciendus. Improper feuds were distinguished from proper ones, however, by those qualities only in which they varied ; in all other respects they were considered proper feuds. ^ Sec. 167. Same — Ligium and non-ligium.— Feuds were also divided iuto feudum ligium and feudum non-ligium. A feudum ligium was one for which the vassal owed fealty to his lord, against all persons whomsoever, with- out any exception or distinction. A feudum non-ligium was one for which the vassal owed fealty to his immediate lord, but with an exception in favor of some superior lord.2 Sec. 168. Same— Feudum. antiquum and feudum novum. — The third division of feuds was into feudum antiquum and feudum novum. A feudum antiquum was that which had descended to the vassal from his father, or some more remote ancestor. A feudum novum was one wliich the vassal had originally acquired for himself. The service in each was the same ; the distinction was merely the method by which the vassal came into jdos- session of the feud.^ Sec. 169. Same — Feudum nobile and feudum. dignitatis. — The fourth division of feuds was into feudum nobile and feudum dignitatis. The feud granted by a sovereign- prince, to be holden immediately of himself, with a juris- diction, was called feudum nobile, and conferred, nobility on the grantee ; where a title of honor was annexed to the lands so granted, it was called a feudum dic/nitatis.^ ' 1 Cruise, Eeal Prop. (4tli ed.) 9, §§ 32, 33. « 1 Bl. Com. 367 ; Spelman's Gloss. 2 3 Bl. Com. 212 ; Spelman's Gloss. ■> Craig, lib. I., tit. 10, §§ 11, 13 ; Spelman's Gloss. In Bouvier's Law Diet. (15th ed.) 655, the following additional feuds are mentioned : Fendum apertum, or a fee which the lord might enter upon and resume either through failure of issue of the tenant, or any part. 2 Bl. Com. 245 ; Spel- man, Gloss. Feudum francum, or a free feud. One which was noble and free from talliage, and other sub- sidies, to which the plebeia feiida, or vulgar feuds, were subject. See: Spelman , Gloss. Feudum haulierticum, or a fee held on the military service of ap- pearing fully armed at the han and arriere ban. Spelman, Gloss. Feudum improprium, or a derivative fee. crime or legal cause on his Feudum individuum, or a fee which Chap. Ii. §§ 170, 171.] INVESTITURE OF FEUDS. igg Sec. 170. investiture of feuds.— Feuds were originally granted by a solemn and public delivery of the very land itself by the lord to the vassal, in the presence of the other vassals of the lord, which ceremony was called investiture.^ This ceremony was so essentially necessary to the creation of a feud, that one could not be constituted without it.^ The only persons who could be witnesses to the investiture were the other vassals of the lord, convas- salli or pares, and their presence was required as much for the advantage of the lord as of the tenant. Of the lord, so that if the tenant was a secret enemy, or in any other manner unqualified, the lord might be apprised of it ; and that they might also bear testimony of the obliga- tions which the tenant contracted. Of the tenant, that they might testify the grant of the lord, and for what services it was made. And lastly for their own advan- tage, that they might know who was the tenant, and what land he held.^ Sec. l7l. Same — Improper or symbolical vestiture. — It was frequently inconvenient for the lord to go to the lands which he intended to grant, and for his convenience, what is known as improper vestiture was introduced, which was a symbolical transfer of the lands, by the delivery of a staff, a sword, or a robe ; the last being the most common method among the immediate vassals of kings and princes, gave rise to the designation inves- could descend to the eldest son military person. 2 Bl. Com. alone. 3 Bl. Com. 215. 57. Feudum matemTim, or a fee de- Feudum talliatum, or a restricted scending from the mother's fee ; that is, one limited to de- side. 2 Bl. Com. 212. soend to certain classes of heirs. Peudnm novum ut antiqnnm, or a 2 Bl. Com. 113, n. ; Spelman, new fee held with the qualities Gloss. See : Le Grand Coutu- and incidents of an ancient mier ; Dalrymple, Feuds ; Du one. 2 Bl. Com. 213. Cange ; Calvinus, Lex. ; Mer- Fendnm patemum, or a fee which lin, Repert. Feodalite ; Pothier, the paternal ancestors had held des Fiefs ; Spelman, Feuds. for four generations. Cal- ' This ceremony is thus described vinus. Lex. ; Spelman, Gloss. by Corvinus : "Investitura ab This was a fee which was de- investiendo dicta, quod per earn Bcendable to heirs on the pater- vassahis possessione quasi veste nal side only (2 Bl. Com. 223), induatur." and which might be held by ° Sciendum est feudum sine Inves- males only. See : Du Cange. titura nullo modo constitui Fendnm propriiun, or a genuine posse. Consuet. Feud., lib. I., original feud or fee, of a mili- tit. 25. tary nature, in the hands of a ' Consuet. Feud., hb. II., tit. 32. 166 BKEVE TESTATUM— FEALTY. [Book II. titure.^ A proper investiture and possession were syn- onymous terms. Whenever investiture was distinguished from possession, it was an improper one.^ Sec. 1T2. Same— Breve testatum.— The services which the vassal was bound to perform were declared by the lord at the time of the investiture, in the presence of the other vassals or convassalli. At first this declaration was merely, made verbally, but as the terms on which the feud was to be held might be forgotten or mistaken, it ulti- mately became usual for the tenant to procure a writing from the lord containing the terms upon which the dona- tion was made, witnessed by the other vassals, which writing was called a hreve testatum. In those cases where the lord could not conveniently go to the land, he delivered to the vassal a hreve testatum, as an improper investiture, with a direction to some person to give him actual possession of the land.^ A hreve testatum being a much better security than a verbal declaration, those who acquired feuds preferred the improper investiture, with a subsequent delivery of the possession, to the proper investiture.* Sec. 1Y3. Fealty— Oath of.— Upon the creation of a feud, a connection and union arose between the lord and his vassal which has been declared by feudal writers to have been stronger than any natural tie whatever, and which the tenant was obliged to acknowledge by taking the oath of fidelity to the lord.^ The idea of this oath appears to have been taken from the obhgation which existed, between the German princes and their com^Yes.® 1 Investitura quidem proprie dioi- * The feudal writers divide an tur poBsessio ; abusivo autem improper investiture into three modo dicitur investitura, parts, — a breve testatum, a proe- quando hasta aut aliud corpo- ceptum seisimoe, and a posses- reum quidlibet porrigitur a sionis tradition. domino, se iuvestituram facere ' The oath was as follows : "Ego dioente. Quae si quidem ab illo Titius (vassallus) juro super fiat, qui alios habet vassallos, base sancta Dei Evangelia, quod saltern coram duobus, ex illis ab hac hora in antea usque ad solemniter fieri debet ; alioqui, ultimum diem vitas meae, ero licet alii intersint testes, inves- fldelis tibi Caio Domino meo titura minime valeat. contra omnem hominem, ex- » Craig, lib. II., tit. 2, § 4; cepto Imperatore, vel Regs." Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tit. 2. Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tit. 7. 2 Craig, lib. II., tit. 2, 17. « Tacitus says : "lUum defendere. Chap. II. §§ 174, 175.] HOMAdJE-DUTlSS OF LORDS. 167 Fealty was so essentially requisite to the nature of a feud, whether it was a proper or an improper one, that such feud could not exist without fealty ; for if lands were given without a reservation of fealty, the tenure was considered as allodial. The oath of fealty, however, was frequently dispensed with.^ Sec. 174. Homage— Ceremony of.— When feuds became military, another ceremony was added called homagium or Jiominium, which was performed by the vassal kneel- ing before his lord, uncovered and ungirt, and putting his hands in those of his lord, and saying : "I become your man from this day forth for life, for member, and for worldly honor, and will owe you faith for the lands that I hold of you, saving the faith that I owe unto our lord the king."^ The lord then embraced the tenant, and this completed the ceremony of homage.^ Fealty and homage are frequently confounded by the feudal writers. A fealty was a solemn oath made by the vassal of fidelity and attachment to his lord ; but homage was merely an acknowledgment of tenure.* Sec. 175. Duties of lord and vassal.— In consequence of the feudal relation of lord and vassal several duties arose, bpth on the part of the lord and on the part of the vassal. The vassal took the oath of fealty and did, homage to his lord, but the lord, on account of his dignity, did nothing ; yet he was as firmly bound as though he had taken a feudal oath to do and forbear everything with respect to the vassal, which the vassal was bound to do and forbear toward the lord. Their obligations and duties were in most respects reciprocal.^ The duties which the vassal owed to the lord ^ were to counsel and aid. Under counsel tueri, sua quoque fortia glorise ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 11, ejus assignare, prsecipuum g 43. sacramentum est." * Craig, lib. I., tit. 11, § 11; Id. 1 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) lib. II., tit. 13, 8 30. 11, 8 41. " Wright, Ten. 43, 44. * 3 Reeves' Hist, Eng. L. (3d ed.) ' These duties are described in the 311. "Devenio homo vester, Consuetudines Feudorum as de tenemento quod de vobii follows: "Qui domino suo teneo, et tenere debeo, et fidem fidelitatem jurat, ista sex in vobis portabo contra omnes memoria semper habere debet, gentes." Incolume, tutum, honestum, utile, facile, possibile." 1G8 AIDS— ESTATE OF VASSAL. [Book II. was included not only giving faithful advice to the lord, but also keeping his secrets, and attending his courts, to enable him to distribute justice to the rest of his attend- ants.^ To aid the lord might be either in supporting his reputation and dignity, or in defending his person or property. By aid to his person, the vassal was not orjly obliged to defend his lord against his private enemies, but also to assist him on his wars ; and feuds were in general originally granted on condition of military service, to be done in the vassal's proper person and at his own expense.^ Sec. 176. Feudal aids.— Under the feudal law the vassal was not originally required to contribute to the lord's private necessities. The first feudal aids were purely military. In course of tirae, however, the lords claimed and estabhshed a right to several other aids, the principal of which were : 1. To make the lord's eldest son a knight. 2. To marry the lord's eldest daughter. 3. To ransom the lord's person when taken prisoner.^ Sec. 177. Estate of vassal.— The estate of the vassal was originally a donation made by the king or lords to their followers or fideles and feuds, and was of a temporary nature, nothing more than the usufruct being given. The proprietas remained in the lord, and the vassal had only the us%fructus or domimumi utile ; that is, a right to take and enjoy the profits of the land, as long as he performed the services due to the lord. The duration of feuds was originally precarious ; they might be resumed at the lord's pleasure. They were afterward granted for a year, then for years, and finally for life. In the course of time it became usual to retain the heir of the last tenant, if he was able to perform the services, and thus feuds became hereditary, and descended to the posterity of the vassal.* ' See : Craig, lib. II., tit. 6. This notion of the original char- ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 13, aoter of feudal property and § 46. the gradual evolution of an ' See : Du Cange, Gloss, voc. hereditary estate by slow de- Auxilium . grees, after a long lapse of time, • * See : Consuet. Feud. I., tit. 1. is vigoriously combated by Mr. Chap. II. §§ 178, 179, 180.] SUBINFEUDATION. 169 Sec. 178. Alienation of feuds.— In the first ages of the feudal law the vassal could not alien the feud without the consent of the lord ; neither could he subject it to the payment of his debts. ^ The consent of the lord was seldom given without receiving a present. From this practice of giving a present on alienating arose the custom of paying the lord a sum of money for permission to alien the feud.^ Sec. 179. Same— Subinfeudation.— A practice arose, how- ever, of disposing of a part of the feud by a grant from the vassal to a stranger, to be held of himself by the same services as those which he owed to his lord, which was called subinfeudation.^ Subinfeudation became ex- tremely common in France during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but was prevented by an ordinance of Philip Augustus in 1210, which directed that where any estate was dismembered from a feud, it should be held of the chief lord.* Sec. 180. Estate of the lord.— The estate or interest of the lord in the lands granted as a feud consisted in the proprietas together with a feudal dominium or seigniory, and a right to fealty and homage, and all the other services reserved upon the grant. In case of failure in any of these the lord might enter upon and take posses- sion of the feud. The feudatory was not able to alien the feud without the consent of the lord, and neither could the lord alien or transfer his seigniory to another without the consent of his feudatory, because the obliga- tions of the lord and vassal being mutual, the vassal was Spence in his work orf the military services which were Equitable Jurisdiction of the due from the vassals, the Court of Chancery, vol. I., pp. tenants were absolutely pro- 44_4g. liibited from alienating their ' It appears, however, from the feuds without the consent of Consuetudines Feudorum, to their lords; which was con- which constant reference is firmed by a law of the Emperor made in this chapter, that feuds Frederic II. See: Consuet. were frequently aliened. By Feud. lib. II., tit. 55. a constitution of the Emperor ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.,) 13, § Lotharius, reciting that the 51. alienation of feuds had proved ' Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tit. 34, § 2. extremely detrimental to the * Herve, lib. I., p. 101. lYO DESCENT OF FEUDS. [Book 1L as rauch interested in the personal qualities of his lord, as the lord was in those of the vassal.-' Sec. 181. The lord's obligation on vassal's eviction. — The vassal was bound to give aid and counsel to his lord, and defend his person and possessions ; and in return for this duty and obligation on the part of the vassal the lord, among other things, was under obligation to defend the vassal in the possession of his feud. In case the vassal was evicted out of the feud granted him by his lord, the lord was obliged to give him another feud of equal extent, or else to pay him the value of that which he had lost.^ This doctrine of the feudal law is the foun- dation of the wide diversity of opinion at the present day in regard to the proper rule of damages in actions for breach of covenant of warranty.^ Sec. 182. Descent of feuds.— According to the feudal law, after feuds became inheritable, the descendants only of the person to whom the feud was originally granted, were entitled to inherit. The reason for this was because the personal ability of the first acquirer to perform the military duties and services reserved was the motive of the donation, and for that reason it could only be transmitted by him to his lineal descendants.* In con- sequence of this rule the ascending line was in all cases excluded.^ At first the sons all succeeded equally, even respecting the succession to the crown ; but the frequent wars occasioned by these partitions caused a regulation that kingdoms should be considered as impartible inherit- ances, and descend to the eldest son.^ The rule, that 1 Consuet. Feudonim, lib. II., tit. sucoedunt." And a modern 34, g 1 ; feudist has said : " Justamen Wright, Ten. 30. feudale, ascendentium ordine - Consuet. Feud. II., tit. 35 ; neglecto, solos descendentes et Craig, lib. II., tit. 4, §§ 1 and 2. collaterales admittit. Quoniam Compare : Wright, Ten. 38. qui feudum acoipit, sibi et ' See : Post (Damages on failure of liberis suis, non parentibus warranty of title). prospicit." In allodial property * Craig, lib. I., tit. 10, § 11 ; Id. lib. the ascending line was capable II., tit. 18, g§ 46, 47 ; Id. tit. 15, of inheriting. Craig, lib. II., § 10. tit. 13, 8§ 46, 47 ; Id. lib. II., tit. ' Hence it is laid down in the Con- 18 ; Id. lib. II., tit. 50. suetudines Feudorum, that : « 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 14, " Successionis feudi talis est §62. natura, quod ascendentes non Honorary feud Indivisiljle. — By a Chap. II. §§ 183, 184.] FEUDUM TALLIATXJM. I7l none but the descendants of the first feudatory could inherit, was so strictly adhered to, that in the case of a feudum novum, the brother of the first acquirer could not succeed to his brother because he was not descended from the person who first acquired the feud. In the case ot a feudum antiquum, however, a brother or other collateral relation who was descended from the first acquirer might inherit the estate. ^ Afterwards collateral relations of the first acquirer of the feud were admitted by granting a feudum novum to be held ut antiquum, that is, with all the qualities of an ancient feud derived from a remote ancestor, in which case the collateral relations were admitted, however distinct from the person who last possessed the feud.^ Sec. 1S3. Same — Feudum talliatum. — To restrain the general right of inheritance in all the collateral relations of the last possessor of the feud, a new kind of feud was invented, called a feudum talliatum, or restricted feud, which was limited to descend to certain classes of heirs.^ Sec. 184. Same — Distinguished from succession under Roman law.— The descent of a feud under the feudal law differed entirely from the succession established by the constitution of the Emperor Du Cange ; Frederic, honorary feuds Le Grand Coutumier ; became indivisible, and they, Merlin, Repert. Poedalite ; with the military feuds, began Pothier, des Fiefs ; to descend to the eldest son, Spelman, Feuds, because he was sooner capable Dn Cange's description. — This of performing the military species of feud is thus described service required of his ancestor. by Du Cange : — Feudum tallia- Consuet. Feud., lib. I., tit. 55. turn dicitur, verbis forensibus. Females were excluded from inher- haereditas in quamdam certitu- iting feuds, originally, because dinem limitata ; seu feudum of their inability to perform the certis conditionibus concessum, military services required, and verbi gratia, alicui et liberis also because of their liability to ex legitime matrimonio nasci- carry the feud by marriage to turis. Unde si is cui feudum strangers or enemies. Con- datum est moriatur absque suet. Feud. , lib. I. , tit. 8 ; liberis, feudum ad donatorem Struvius, Syntag. Jur. Feud., c. redit. Talliare enim est in IV. , § 8. quamdam certitudinem ponere, ' Consiiet. Feud., lib. I., tit. 1,8 2. vel ad quoddam certum hsered- ' See • Craie lib. I., tit. 10, Ss 11, itamentum limitare. See: 13,14,15. Craig, lib. I., tit. 10, §§17, 35. ' 3 Bl,' Com. 113, note ; Spelman, Talliare, Dividere, Partiri, Dis- Qloss. ponere. Vide Carpentier, Gloss. See : Calvinus Lex. ; voc. Talliare, 3. Dali-ymple, Feuds ; 172 INVESTITURE AND ESCHEAT. [Book H. Eoman law. In the former, the heir was a person instituted by the ancestor, or appointed by the law, to represent the ancestor in all his civil rights and obliga- tions ; but in the feudal law the heir succeeded not under any supposed representation to the ancestor, but as related to him in blood, and designated, in consequence of that relation, by the terms of the investiture to suc- ceed to the feud.^ Sec. 185. Investiture upon descent.— After feuds became inheritable, the lord, upon the death of the tenant, claimed the right of granting a new investiture to the successor, without which he could not enter into legal possession of the feud. This right on the part of the lord showed that the right of inheriting was originally derived from the bounty and acquiescence of the lord ; and the investiture was evidence of the tenure, as well as of the services that were to be rendered for the feud.^ Sec. 186. Same— Relevlum.— It was customary for the lord on such occasion to demand some present from the heir, upon granting him investiture ; and this custom of receiving presents from the heir who succeeded to the feud in time became a part of the profits of the feud, and was technically known as a relevium.^ Sec. 187. Escheat of feuds. — Feuds being originally granted on condition of military or other services, when there was no person capable of performing such services, it was deemed but just that the feud should return to the lord ; consequently, where a vassal died without heirs, the lord became entitled to the feud by escheat.* Sec. 188. Forfeiture of feuds.— Feuds being originally considered as voluntary donations, it soon became the ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 17, ducam et incertam haeredita- § 68. tem relevabant ; solutS. summa '1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 15, vel pecuniae, velaliarumrerum, §69. pro diversitate feudorum. ° Eelevium est prsestatio hgeredum, Scliilt. Cod., § 52. qui cum veteri jure feudalinon ■* 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 16, poterantsucoederein feudis, ca- § 71. Chap. U. §§.189, 190.] FOEFEITURE OF FEUDS. I73 established rule that every act of the vassal which was contrary to the connection that subsisted between him and his lord, and to the fidelity which the former owed the latter, or by which the vassal disabled himself from performing the services due to the lord, should operate as a forfeiture of the feud.^ Should the vassal omit to require an investiture from the heir of his lord, on the latter's decease, for a year and a day, and to take the oath of fealty to him, he thereby lost the feud ; and in case of the vassal's death, if his heir neglected to require investiture from the lord within a year and a day, he forfeited his feud.^ If the vassal refused to perform the services reserved upon such reinvestiture, he forfeited the feud.^ And if the vassal aliened the feud, or by any act of his considerably diminished the value thereof, he forfeited it.* Where the vassal denied that he held his feud of the lord, declaring that he held it of some other person, or denied that the land was held by a feudal tenure, he forfeited the feud.^ And every species of felony operated as a forfeiture of the feud, being regarded as the highest breach of the vassal's oath of fealty.^ Sec. 189. rorfeiture of seigniory.— The lord being equally bound to observe the terms of relation on his part to the vassal that the vassal was bound to observe to his feudal lord, if he neglected to protect and defend his tenant, or do anything that was prejudicial to him, or injurious to the feudal connection, he forfeited his seigniory.'' Sec. 190. Feudal jurisdiction.— The feudal lord had a right to the services of his vassals to defend his person and his property in time of war ; and the privilege also of adjusting their differences and determining their dis- putes in time of peace.^ The origin of the feudal juris- • 1 Cruise, Real. Prop. (4th ed.) 16, * Si vassallus feudum dissiparet, ^73 , aut insigni detrimento detejius « Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tits. 23,24. faceret, privabitur. Consuet. ' Non est alia justior causa benefi- Feud., lib. I., tit. 2 ; Zasius, In cii auferendi, quae si id, prop- Usus Feud., pars. 10, § 54. ter quod benefioium datum ' Craig, lib. III., tit. 5, § 2. fuerit, hoc servitium facere « 1 Cruise on Eeal Prop. (4th ed.) 17, recusaverit; quia beneficium §''"''•„, ,., „ ^.^ „„ ,_ amittit. Consuet. Feud.- Ub. ' Consuet. Feud., lib. XL, tits. 26,47 II. tit. 24, § 2. * Si inter duos vassaUos de feudo 174; FEUDAL JURISDICTION. [BOOK II, diction is accounted for thus : — By the laws of all northern nations every crime, including murder, was punished by a pecuniary fine, called fredum. ^ In the infancy of the northern governments, the chief occupa- tion of the judge consisted in ascertaining and levying those fines which constituted a considerable part of the public revenue. When extensive tracts of lands were granted as feuds, the privilege of levying those fines was always included in the reservation in the grant, with a right to hold a court for the purpose of ascertaining them ; and from this followed the jurisdiction over vassals, both in civil and criminal matters.^ In all those nations descended from the Germans, justice was origin- ally administered in their general assemblies. The king or chieftain did fiot pronounce sentence till he had con- sulted those persons who were of the same rank with the accused, and without their -consent no judgment could be given. Out of this custom grew the feudal jurisdic- tion by which each lord held a court in which he dis- tributed justice to his vassals ; every freeman who held lands from the lord was bound, under pain of forfeiting his feud, to attend his court, there to assist his lord in determining all disputes arising between his vassals. These tenants, being all of the same rank and holding of the same lord, were called pares curice.^ sit controversia, domini sit ^ 2 Bl. Com. 54 ; cognito, et per eum contro- Craig, lib. II. , tit. 2, § 4; Id. lib. versia terminetur. Si vero II., tit. 11, §18; inter dominum et vassallum lis Herve, vol. I. , § 263. oriatur, per pares curi», a This practice is said to have been domino sub fldelitatia debito established as early as the reign conjuratos terminetur. Con- of Emperor Conrad, 920, who suet. Feud., Ub. I., tit. 18; Id., left the following law: lib. II., tit. 55. Statuimus, ut nullus miles 'When it was not determined by episooporum, abbatum, etc.) law, it was generally the third vel hominum, qui beneficium of what was given for the com- de nostris publicis bonis, aut position, as appears in the law de ecclesiarum prsediis, etc., of the Riparians, c. 89, which tenent, etc., sine certa et con- is explained by the third capit- victa culpa, suum beneficium ulary of the year 813, edition perdat, nisi secundum con- of Balufius, torn. I., p. 512. suetudiuera antecessorum nos- ' See : 2 Monte-sque, Spirit L. (10th trorum, et judicium parium ed., Edinburgh), bk. 80, c. 20,. suorum. Consuet. Feud., lib, p. 343. v., tit. 1. «2 Montesque, Spirit L. (10th ed., Edinburgh), p. 342. CHAPTEE III. ANCIENT ENGLISH TENURES. Sec. 191. Introduction of feuds. Sec. 192. Doctrine that lands held of king. Sec. 193. Consequences of establishment of feudal tenures. Sec. 194. Same — Effect on Booland and Folcland. Sec. 195. Nature of the tenures. Sec. 196. Same — Escheat and forfeiture. Sec. 197. Kinds of tenures. Sec. 198. Same — Regarding free tenures. Sec. 199. Villeinage and copyholds. Sec. 200. Tenure in capite. Sec. 201. Tenure de honore. Sec. 202. Tenure by knight-service. Sec. 203. Same — Duties imposed. Sec. 204. Same — Scutagium. Sec. 205. Same — Fruits of tenure by knight-service. Sec. 206. Tenure by escuage. Sec. 207. Tenures by grand serjeanty. Sec. 208. Consequences of tenure. Sec. 209. Statute Quia Emptores. Sec. 210. Homage — Ceremony and importance of. Sec. 211. Fealty — An incident of feudal tenure. Sec. 212. Aids of the ancient English tenures. Sec. 213. Reliefs — Sums paid on investiture. Sec. 214. Primer seisin — Definition. Sec. 215. Wardship— Distinction between male and female wards. Sec. 216. Marriage— Male and female wards. Sec. 317. Abolition of military tenures. Section 191. introduction of feuds.— Our institutions being derived from the English, and the English finding their root and foundation in the old feudal institutions, in the study of our institutions, and particularly our laws relating to and regulating real property, it becomes im- portant to know something regarding the ancient Eng- lish tenures. It is now universally admitted that the feudal system, as established in Normandy, with all its ■' 175 176 INTEODUCTION OF FEUDS. [Book II. fruits and services, was first introduced into England by William the Conqueror, and established in those posses- sions of the Saxon Thanes which were granted by him to his followers. About the twentieth year of his reign the feudal system was formally and generally adopted tliroughout the entire kingdom.^ All owners of land were required to engage and swear, that they became vassals or tenants, and as such would be faithful to Wil- liam, as lord, in respect to the dominium residing in a feudal lord ; ^ that they would swear, everywhere faith- fully to maintain and defend their lord's territories and titles as well as his person ; and give him all possible 1 See : Spelman, Feuds, per tot ; Wright Ten. 63. The most remarkable of the laws of William the Conqueror estab- lishing the feudal . system in England were chapters 53 and 58. The tenor of the 53d was Eis follows: " Statuimus, ut omnes liberi hominies fsedere et Sacramento aifirment, quod intra et extra universum reg- num Angliee (quod olim voca- batur regnum Britlaniae), Wil- helmo fuo domino fideles esse velint ; terras et honores iUius fideUtate ubique fervare cum eo, et contra inimicos et alien- igenas defendere." Same — The terms of this law are very general ; and probably it was purposely so conceived, in order to conceal the conse- quences that were intended to be founded thereon. The people of the country received with content a law which they looked upon in no other hght than as compelling them to swear allegiance to William. The nation in general, by complying with it, probably meant no more than the terms apparently imported; namely, that they obliged themselves to submit, and be faithful to Wil- liam, as their lord, or king ; to maintain his title and defend his territory (Wright, Ten. 79). But the persons who penned . that law, and William who promoted it, had deeper views, which were a little more ex- plained in his 58th law. This enactment was in these words : Same — 58th Law. — " Statuimus etiam, et firmiter prsecipimus, ut omnes comites et barones, et milites, et servientes, et uni- versi liberi homines totius regni nostri predicti habeant et tene- ant fe semper bene in armis et in equis, ut decet, et oportet; et quod fint semper prompti, et bene parati ad servitiumi fuum integrum nobis explendum, et peragendum, cum semper opus fuerit, secundum quod nobis de feodis debent et tenementis fuis de jure facere, et ficut illis statuimus per commune con- cilium totius regni nostri prae- dicti, et illis dedimus et con- cessimus in fsedo, jure hseredi- tario. " Kind of service required. — By this law the nature of the service to be performed is ex- pressly mentioned, namely, knight-service on horseback ; and the term of each feudal grant was declared to be jure hsereditario. This latter cir- cumstance must have had a very considerable effect in quieting the minds of men, re- specting the nature of this new establishment. The Saxon feuds, being perhaps benefici- ary, and only for life, were at once converted into inherit- ances ; and the Normans ob- tained a more permanent in- terest in their new property, than probably they had before enjoyed in their ancieiit feuds. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) 35, 36. 2 Wright, Ten. 68. Chap. III. §§ 192, 193.] LANDS HELD^OF KING. 177 assistance against his enemies, whether foreign or domestic.^ These engagements and obhgations being the fundamental principles of the feudal state, when such were required from every freeman to the king, that policy was in effect established.^ Sec. 192. Doctrine that lands held of king.— As a con- sequence of this establishment of the feudal system it became a fiction of the English law, which finally ripened into a maxim, that all the lands in the kingdom were originally granted and held of the king, either mediately or immediatel}^, in consideration of certain services ren- dered or to be rendered by the tenant. The thing held was called a tenement, the possessor thereof was called a tenant, and the manner of his possession a tenure. Whether the feuds thus held by the tenants were origin- ally hereditary or not, in those countries where the feudal law was first established, it is not of importance here to discuss ; but we find that feuds were from the beginning hereditary where lands were held by an allodial tenure, and voluntarily converted into feuds. ^ And when "William the Conqueror established himself in England, he granted to his followers an inheritance of all the estates which he distributed among them ; and when he persuaded the Anglo-Saxon proprietors to hold their lands by a feudal teniire, he allowed them to retain the inheritance.* Sec. 193. Consequences of establishment of feudal tenures. — From the statutes of William the Conqueror, referred to above, are to be derived the consequences of the ancient English tenure. From them a new system of law sprung up, by which the landed property of England was entirely ' Wright, Ten. 68. feuds. That he also recalled a ^ 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) number of the ancient inhahit- 35^ 36. ants who had held their estates ' Basnagei in his commentary on by hereditary right, and ro- the customs of Normandy, torn. stored them to their p( )ssei: sions l(ed. 1778),p.l53,savsthatwlien in as full and ample a manner KoUo became master of that as they Imd held them under province, he granted a consid- the kings of France, erable portion of it to his com- ■• 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 20, panions, and to the gentlemen g 4. of Brittany, as .hereditary 12 178 NATUEE OF TENURES: [Bock II. governed to the middle of the last century, and is, in a greater or less degree, influenced even at this day. The i^ormandy lawyers, who were versed in this kind of learn- ing, exercised their talents in explaining its doctrines, its rules, and its maxims ; and at length established, upon artificial reasoning, most of the refinements of feudal jurisprudence.^ Sec. 194. Same— Effect on Boeland and Folcland.— By the operation of the statutes above referred to, the Saxon distinction between Boeland and Folcland, charter-land and allodial, with the trinoda necessitas, and other inci- dents, was abolished ; and all the liheri homines of the kingdom, on a sudden, became possessed of their lands under a tenure which bound them, in a feudal light, mediately or immediately to the king. Thus, if A had received his land of the king, and B had received his of A ; B now held his land of A on the same terms, and under the same obligations, that A held his of the king ; each considering himself under the reciprocal obligations of lord and tenant. In this manner it became a maxim of our law, that all land was held mediately or immedi- ately of the king, in whom resided dominium directum ; while the subject enjoyed only the dominium utile, or the present cultivation and fruits of it.^ Sec. 195. Nature of the tenures.— The position of affairs above described led to consequences of the greatest impor- tance. Military service being required by an express statute, the other effects of tenure were deductions from the effect of that establishment. The king's tenants being supposed to have received their lands by the gift of the king, it seemed not unreasonable, that upon the death of the ancestor, the heir should purchase a con- tinuance of the king's favor by the payment of a sum of money called a relief,^ for entering into the estate. Such heir being bound to the same service for which his ancestor was liable, which was the only return that >1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) » 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.l 36. 36,37. ^ See : Ante, § 186. Chap. III. §§ 196, 197.] ESCHEAT AND FORFEITURE. I79 could be made in consideration of his enjoying the prop- erty, it was thought reasonable that the king should judge, whether the heir was capable, by his years, of performing the services required ; if not, that he, as lord, should have the custody of the land during the infancy of the heir ; that by the produce of it he might provide himself with a sufficient substitute, and in the mean time have the care or wardship of the infant's per- son, in order that he might educate him in a manner becoming the character he was to support as his tenant. If the heir was a female, it was equally material to the lord that she should connect herself in marriage with a proper person, and hence the disposal of her in marriage was thought naturally to belong to the lord.^ Sec. 196. Same— Escheat and forfeiture.— On the first in- troduction of feuds into England, the obligations sub- sisting between lord and tenant were similar to the feudal ties that bound lord and vassal in Normandy, and their mutual duties and obligations were the same.^ The obligations between the lord and his tenant so united their interests that the tenant was bound to afford aid and counsel to his lord, by payment of money on certain emergent calls respecting himself or his family ; such as when he married his daughter, or when he made his son a knight, or when he was taken pris- oner.^ Besides these incidents, it was held the land fell back into the hands of the lord for want of heirs of the tenant, or for commission of certain crimes ; and in case of treason or felony it came into the hands of the king by the way of forfeiture. * Sec. 197. Kinds of tenures.— Ancient English tenures were, according to the nature of the services, either free or base ; and, in respect to their quantity and time of execution, were either certain or uncertain. Free serv- ices were such as were not unbecoming the character of a soldier or a freeman to perform ; such as to serve under > See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. » See : Ante, §§ 148, 149. (3d ed.) 37 ; 3 Id. 297. * See : Ante, S 161 ; « See : Ante, §§ 148, 150-154. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 38. 180 KINDS OF TENUEES. [BOOK H. the lord in wars, to pay a sum of money, and the Kke. Base services were such as were fit only for peasants and persons of servile rank ; such as to plow the lord's land, to make his hedges, to carry out his dung, or other mean employments. The certain services, either free or base, were such as were stinted in quantity and could not be exceeded on any pretense ; such as to pay a stated annual rent or to plow such a field for three days. The uncertain services depended on unknown contingencies, such as to do military service in person, or pay an as- sessment in lieu of it, when called upon, which were free services ; or to do whatever the lord should command, which was a base or villein service.^ From the vairious combinations of these services arose the four kinds of lay tenures which subsisted in England up to the middle of the sixteenth century, and three of which have been con- tinued to the present day. First, where the services were free, but uncertain, as military services ; which tenure was called chivalry, servitium militare, or knight-service. Secondly, where the service was not only free but also certain, as by "fealty only, by rent and fealty and the like ; which tenure was called liherum socagium, or free socage. These were the only free holdings or tenements ; the others were villeinous, or servile. The third was where the services were base in their nature, and uncertain as to both time and quantity, and the tenure being purum villenagium, absolute or pure villeinage. And lastly, where the service was base in its nature, but reduced to a certainty, which, though still villeinage, was distinguished from the other by the name of privileged villeinage ; ^ or it might be still called socage, from the certainty of its service, but degraded by the baseness of such services into the inferior title of villein socage.^ Sec. 198. Same— Regarding free tenures.— Free tenures were of two kinds : tenure by the knight-service,* and 1 See : 2 Bl. Com. 60 ; » 2 Bl. Com. 60. 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) * In knight-serviee, where the tenant 20, § 5. died leaving a male heir under ' Villenaqium privilegiatum. 1 twenty-one years, the lord held Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 30, the land until the heir arrived § 6. at full age ; and if he was not Chap. III. § 198.] FEEE TENURES. 181 tenure in socage.^ The tenure by a knight-service was in its institution purely military, and the legitimate outgrowth of the feudal establishment in England.^ The services of this tenure were occasional, though not altogether uncertain, each service being confined to forty days. This tenure was subject to relief, aid, escheat, wardship, and marriage. Socage was a tenure by any conventional service not military. Knight-service con- tained two species of military tenure : grand ^ and petit serjeanty.* Under a socage may be ranked two married, the lord also had the marriage. If it was an heir female, and she was of the age of fourteen or more, the lord had neither the land nor body in ward, because she. might marry one who was sufficient to do the service. If she waa under fourteen years and un- married, then he might have the wardship of the land till she was sixteen years old. Concerning this, pi-ovisions were made by the statute of "Westminster I. and the statute Merton. See: 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 280 ; 2 Id. 103 ; 3 Id. 297. > See : 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 296. ' Wright, Ten. 140. 3 See : Post, § 207. Grand seijeanty w^as a holding of the king, and of him only, by such services as ought to be done in proper person to the king : as to carry the king's banner or lance ; to lead his army, to be his marshal, carry his sword before him at the coronation, to be his carver, his butler, one of his chamber- lains of the receipt of the ex- chequer, or other service ; to find a man for the war was also a grand serjeanty. The same service made the tenure differ- ent, accordingly as the land was held of a private person, or of the king. Thus land held by the service of comage, to wind a horn when the Scots came into the country, was grand serjeanty, if held of the kmg ; yet if held of a private person, it was not grand serjeanty, but knight-service, and drew to it ward and marriage ; for none could hold by grand serjeanty but of the king. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 302. Grand serjeanty again differed from eacuage, inasmuch as those who held by escuage ought to do their service out of the realm ; but those who held by grand serjeanty were to perform their service within the realm, as appears by most of the above instances. One who held by grand ' serjeanty was consid- ered as a tenant by knight- service ; for he was liable to ward, marriage, and relief; but no escuage could be de- manded of him, unless it was also a tenure in escuage. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 302. * Tenure ty petit serjeanty was now, like grand serjeanty, always a holding of the king, and him only ; to yield to him a bow, a sword, a dagger, knife, lance, a pair of gloves, an arrow, or other small things belonging to the war. This service was con- sidered in effect but as socage ; for the tenant was not obliged to go, or do anything in person touching the war, but merely to pay yearly certain things to the king. Such were the nat- ures of grand and petit ser- jeanty at the period of which we are now writing : there are several marks of difference be- tween this description and that given by Bracton ; the princi- pal of which is, that both were now required to be held of the king. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 302, 303. 182 VILLEINAGE AND COPYHOLDS. [Book II. species of tenure : burgage and even gavelkind, though the latter had many qualities different from common socage. Besides these there was a tenure called frankal- moigne. This was the tenure by which religious houses and religious persons held their lands, and was so called because lands became thereby exempt from all service except that of prayer and religious duties. Persons holding by this tenure were said to hold in libera elee- mosyna, or in free alms. Sec. 199. Villeinage and copyholds.— It was by th^se tenures that the liberi homines of the kingdom became either tenants by knight-service or in common socage. It is thought that the condition of the lower order of ceorls, who among the Saxons were in a state of bond- age, received an improvement under this new polity, by being enfranchised and permitted to do fealty for the scanty subsidies which they were allowed to raise on their precarious possessions.^ They were permitted to retain their possessions on performing the ancient serv- ices ; but, by doing fealty, the nature of their posses- sion was, in construction of the feudal law, altered for the better. They were by that advanced in the character of tenants ; and the improved state in which they were placed was called the tenure of villeinage.^ Elevated to. ' Wright, Ten. 216. ' From the time of Henry HI. little was said of villeinage, consid- ered either as a condition of society or as a tenure. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 268, 269, 270 ; 3 Id. 308. For an interesting account of the character and history of " Vil- lein Tenure, "see Annals Ameri- can Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. I. , pp. 412- 425. The proper and primary notion of Yilleinage was, when a person, being villein to a lord, held also of that lord certain lands or tenements at the wiU of the lord, to do viUein services ; as to carry the lord's dung out of the city, or off the manor, to put it upon the land, and sim- ilar predial labors. But such have been the revolutions in so- ciety, and the changes in prop- erty, it now very commonly happened that some persons who were free had become possessed of lands burdened with such services ; and such tenure was still called villein- age, though the persons them- selves were no villeins. Others, on the contrary, who were vil- leins, had yet no land at all to hold in lieu of such services, which they were, nevertheless, still bound to perform. An- other change that had taken place was, that the vUlein-serv- ices were no longer indeter- minate, and wholly at the wiU of the lord, as in the time of Braoton, but were universally limited (as even in his time they were in the case of one sort of villeins, called viUein-sockmen) by the custom that had imme- Chap. III. § 199.] ADVANCEMENT OF THE CEORLS. 183 this condition and consideration, they were treated with less wantonness by their lords, who, after receiving their fealty, could not in honor and conscience deprive them of their possessions while they performed their services. But the conscience and honor of their lord was their only support. However, the acquiescence of the lord, in suf- fering the descendants of such persons to possess the land, in the course of years, advanced the pretensions of the tenant in opposition to the absolute right of the lord ; till at length this forbearance grew into a permanent and legal interest, which in after-times was called copy- hold tenure.^ moriaUy prevailed in the ma- nor. Tlius the universal char- acter of tenure in villeinage was a holding according to the cus- tom of a manor, or otherwise at the will of the lord. With this qualification, the law of villein- age stood mostly on the footing it was on in the age of Brao- ton. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 308, 309. As to the persons of villeins, they were either such by prescrip- tion, so that a villein and his ancestors had been villeins time out of mind of man, or by ac- knowledgment and confession in a court of record. Again, vil- leins were said to be regardant, or in gross. The former were in the nature of the original and proper villeins, namely, such as had belonged, they and theu' ancestors, to a manor, time out of the memory of man. The latter were such as had been granted by deed from one to another, in consequence of which they became villeins in gross, and not regardant. A man and his ancestors might perhaps have been fiefed of a villeia and his ancestors, who were such in gross, beyond the memory of man. A man who confessed himself a villein in a court of record was a villein in gross. A female villein was called a niece. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) 309. Consequences of villeinage. — These were the divisions and species of villeins. Some points of law, as now understood, con- cerning this sort of persons, were as follow. If a villein took a free woman to wife, and had issue, the children were considered by the law as vil- leins ; on the other hand, if a niece married a freeman, the issue were free. In this an analogy seems to have been preserved towards our law of descents, which gave a prefer- ence to the male line, in direct contradiction to the civil law, which in a similar case pro- nounced, that partus sequitur ventrem. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. 308-310. 1 Wright, Ten. 220 ; 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 39. Villeins could not hold property. — According to the ancient law of England, a villein being him- self a subject of property, what- ever property he himself ac- quired might be taken and held' by his owner as an incident or perquisite of his right of prop- erty in such villein. Conse- quently, if an executor had a villein for years, and the vil- lein purchased lands in fee, upon which the executor en- tered, he should have the whole fee-simple ; but because he bad the villein in autre droit, that is, an executor, it was regarded as assets in his hands (1 Co. Litt. 117, 124). ChanceUor Bland says in Coombs v. Jordan, 3. Bland Ch. (Md.) 284; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 236, 250, that '• this is a singular instance in which 184 TENURE IN CAPITE. [Book II, Sec. 200. Tenure in capita.— In the first instance all lands in England are supposed to have been held imme- diately of the king, but in consequence of the practice of subinfeudation, which soon grew up and prevailed throughout the kingdom, the king's chief tenants granted out a considerable part of their estates to in- ferior persons to hold of themselves, by which mesne or middle tenures were created. From this source arose several distinctions as to the manner in which lands were held. Estates might be held of the king or of a subject in two ways, either as of his person or as of the honor or manor of which he was seized. Every hold- ing of the person was, strictly speaking, a tenure in capite. Still, that expression was always confined to a holding of the king in right of his crown and dignity, for where lands were held of the person of the subject they were called tenure in gross. ^ This class of tenure was in general so inseparable from a holding of the per- son of the king, that if lands were granted by the king, without reserving any tenure, the lands, by operation of law, were held of the king in capite, because that tenure was the most advantageous to the crowu.^ Sec. 201. Tenure de honore.—Where'an honor or barony, originally created by the crown, returned to the king by forfeiture or escheat, the persons who held their lands of such honor or barony became tenants to the crown, and were said to hold of the king ut de honore. This distinc- tion of tenure was important to those who held of such owners or baronies. By an article of the Magna Charta lands held in fee-simple might master, who held him as an become assets in the hands of executor or administrator." an executor ; and as such lia- Citing : Hall v. Mullin, 5 Har. & ble by the common law to be J. Md. 190 ; taken and sold for the payment Cunningham v. Cunningham, of the debts of the deceased to Cam. & N. (N. C.) 353 ; whose estate the perquisite had Bynum v. Bostick, 4 Desau. 366. accrued. But as the -v-illeinage ' 1 Co. Inst. lOfJa ; has long since ceased in Eng- Estvick's Case, 13 Co. 135 ; land, this law has certainly be- , Fitz. N. B. 5. come obsolete there ; yet, I ^ Lowe's Case, 9 Co. , 133 ; Can see no reason why the same 1 Co. Inst. 108a ; law might not be applied in 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 21, Maryland as to any real estate §§ 7-9 ; which might be conveyed to a Statutes 1 Edw. VI., o. 4. slave with the consent of his Chap. III. § 204.] TENURE BY KNIGHT-SERVICE. 135 of King Henry III. it was declared that persons holding of honors escheated, and in the king's hands, should pay- no more relief nor perform any more services to the king, than they should to the baron if it were in his hands. ^ It follows that where lands which were held of the king as of the honor or manor, and escheated to the crown, the tenure was not in capite ; and where lands were granted by the king to hold of him, as of his manor, this was not a tenure in capite.^ Sec. 202. Temire by kniglit-service.— The first and most honorable kind of tenure was by knight-service, or servitium militare. To constitute this class of tenure, a determined quantity of land was necessary, which was called knight's fee, or feudum militare, the measure of which has been estimated at eight hundred acres of land by some, and by others at six hundred and eighty acres. ^ Sec. 203 Same— Duties imposed.— Every person holding by knight-service was obliged to attend his lord to the wars, if called upon, on horseback, armed as a knight, for forty days in every year, at his own expense. This attendance was his redditus, or return for the land he held. If he had only half a knight's fee, he was only bound to attend for twenty days, and so on, in propor- tion.* Sec. 204. Same— Scutagium.— The personal attendance in knight's service growing troublesome and incon- venient, the tenants found means of compounding for it ; first by sending others in their stead, and afterwards by making a pecuniary satisfaction to their lords in lieu of it. At last this pecuniary satisfaction was levied by assessments, at so much for every knight's fee ; from whence it acquired the name of scutagium, or servitum ' See • 2 Co Inst. 64. not the quantity of the land ; « 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 33, § that but twenty pounds a year ^^ was the qualification of a « Lord'Coke was of the opinion that knight. 1 Co. Inst. 69a. a knight's fee was estimated * 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 33, § according to the quality and 14. 186 TENURE BY ESCUAGE AND SERJEANTY. [Book II. scuti ; scutum being then a well-known name for money, and in Norman French it was called escuage.^ Sec. 205. Same— Fruits of tenure by knight-service. — The tenure by knight service, being the most honorable, was also the most favorable to the lord, for it drew after it these five fruits or consequences, as inseparably inci- dent to it ; namely, aids, relief, primer seisin, wardship, and marriage.^ Sec. 206. Tenure by eseuage.— Military service due from tenants underwent an alteration in the reign of Henry II. The attendance of the knight for only forty days was inadequate to the purposes of war, and the short service was highly inconvenient to the tenant, who perhaps came from the northern parts of the kingdom to perform his service in a province of France. Sensible of these inconveniences, in the fourth year of his reign, Henry II. devised a commutation for- these services, to which was given the name of eseuage or scutage. He published an order, that such of his tenants as would pay a certain sum, should be exempted from service, either in person or by deputy, in the expedition he then meditated against Tholouse. This sort of compromise was afterwards con- tinued ; and tenure by eseuage became a new species of military tenure, springing from the advantage some tenants by knight-service had taken of this proposition made by the king.^ Sec. 20T. Tenures by grand seijeanty.— The species of tenure called grand serjeanty, heretofore referred to,* was considered superior to knight-service ; whereby the tenant was bound, instead of , serving the king generally in his wars, to do him some special honorary service in person. Thus where the king gave lands to a man to hold of him by the service of being marshal of his host, or marshal of England, or high steward of England, or ' Mad. Exch. 653 ; » 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. r4th ed ) 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 23, 40 ; & v ' §15- Spelm. Cod. inWilk. Leg.,p. 331. * 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 34, * See : Ante, 8 198. §33. Chap. III. §§ 208, 209.] STATUTE QUIA EMPTORES. 187 the like, these were grand serjeanties. So if the lands ■were given to a man to hold by the service of carrying the king's sword at his coronation, or being his carver or butler, these were called services of honor, held by grand serjeanty.^ Sec. 208. Consequeneesoftenure.— The polity of tenures tended to restrict men in the use of that which, to all outward appearance, was their own. When the land of the Saxons was conv^erted from allodial to feudal, as above described, it could no longer be aliened without the consent of the lord, nor could it be disposed of by will. These, with other shackles, sat heavy upon the possessors of land ; nor were at last removed, except by frequent and gradual alterations, during a course of several cent- uries. The history of these alterations in the descent, alienation, and other properties of feuds, is wrapped in obscurity during this early period.^ Sec. 209. statute Quia Emptores.— In the first years of the feudal law a private individual might, by grant of land, have created a tenure as of his person, or as of any honor or manor whereof he was seized ; and if no tenure was reserved, the feoffee would hold of the feoffor by the same services by which the feoffor held over. From this doctrine there sprang several attendant inconveniences, to remedy which, in the reign of King Edward I., the statute Quia Emptores terrarum was passed, which directs that upon all sales or feoffments of lands, the feoffee shall hold the same, not of his immediate feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee of whom such feoffor himself held. These provisions did not extend to the king's tenants in capite, and the law respecting them was regulated by the statute of Prcerogativa Regis, ^ by which all sub- infeudations previous to the reign of Edward I. were confirmed, and all subsequent to that date left open to the king's prerogative.* ' Fleta, lib. I., c. 10 ; » 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng.L.(2d ed.) 40. 1 Co. Inst. 106a, 107a ; » 17 Edw. II., c. 6, and 34 Edw. III., Dyer. 285b ; c. 13. 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 37, * 1 Co. Inst. 98b; 2 Co. Inst. 501; § 34. 1 Cruise, Real. Prop. 23, § 13. 188 CEREMONY OF HOMAGE. [Book II. Sec. 210. Homage— Ceremony and importance of. — Tenure by knight-service had all the marks of a strict and regular feud, as heretofore set out, including words of pure donation,^ transfer by investiture,^ or delivering of corporeal possession of the land, and was perfected by homage ^ and fealty.* Secondly, every person holding a feud by this tenure was bound to do homage to his lord, which consisted in his kneeling before him and saying : "I become your man from this day forward, of life and limb, and of earthly worship ; and unto you shall be true and faithful, and bear you faith for th'e tenements that I claim to hold of you ; saving the faith that I owe unto our sovereign lord the king. " And the lord being seated, kissed him.^ Homage was incident to knight-service because it concerned service in war. It had to be done in person and not by proxy or substitute ; and the per- formance of it, where it was due, materially concerned the welfare both of the lord and the tenant. To the lord it was of great consequence because until he had received homage of the heir, he was not entitled to the wardship of his person or estate. To the tenant homage was equally important, because, when received, it bound the lord to acquittal and warranty ; that is, to keep the tenant free from distress, entry, or other molestation for services due to the lord paramount, and to defend his title to the land against all strangers.'^ Sec. 211. Pealty— An incident of feudal tenure.— Another incident of feudal tenure was fealty, which has been heretofore adverted to.' All tenants by knight service 1 See : Ante, 1 165. ive situations and duties of the ' See : Ante, § 185. lord and vassal; which, in con- ' See : Ante, 1 174. formity to the principle of the * See : Ante. § 173. feudal law, were reciprocal. ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 33, Thus Glanville says . Mutua § 1'''! quidem debet esse dominii et Litt. § 85 ; homagii fidelitatls connexio, ita 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) quod quantum homo debet do- 277; 8 Id. 306. mlno, ex homagio: tantum illi See : Ante, ^ 174. debet dominus, prastar solam « 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 24, reverentiam. Glanv., lib. IX., §18. c. 4. The words homaginm and dominium ' See : Ante § 200. are directly opposed to each 1 Reeves'' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) other, as expressing the respect- 277; 3 Id. 306. Chap. III. §§ 212, 213.] FEALTY AND AIDS. 189 were subject to fealty, which is described by Littleton as follows : ' ' When a freeholder doth fealty, he shall hold his right hand upon a book and shall say thus : — Knew you this, my lord, that I shall be faithful and true unto you, and faith to you shall bear for the lands which I claim to hold of you, and that I shall lawfully do to you the customs and services which I ought to do at the time assigned. So help me God and his saints." He thereupon kissed the book.^ Fealty and homage were perfectly distinct from each other. Although fealty was an incident of homage, and usually accompanied it, yet it might exist by itself, being something done when homage would have been improper. Homage was in- separable from fealty, but fealty was separable from homage.^ Homage and fealty were the great bonds between lord and tenant in feudal times, and when once established, were too sacred to be altered in substance.^ Sec. 212. Aids of the ancient English tenure.— The aids of the ancient English tenure were the same as those established on the continent heretofore alluded to ; * namely, to make the lord's eldest son a knight, to marry the lord's eldest daughter, and to ransom the lord's per- son when taken prisoner. Aids of this kind were origin- ally uncertain ; but by the statute of Westminster I. the aids of inferior lords were fixed at twenty shillings for every knight's fee, for making the eldest son a knight, or marrying his eldest daughter. The same thing was done in regard to the king's tenants in capite by a subsequent statute.^ The aid for the ransom of the lord's person always remained uncertain from the very nature of the ransom.^ Sec. 213. Beliefs— Sums paid on investiture.— The practice of paying a sum of money by the heir of the deceased tenant to the lord of his father on investiture upon ' Litt. S 91. " See : Aiite, § 176. 2 1 Co. Inst. 68a; ' Stat. 35 Edw. III., c. 11. Wright, Ten. 55n. * 2 Inst. 231. ' 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) See : Aids to tlie King, 13 Co. 36; 306 1 Cruise, Real Prop. 24, §§ 23, 34. 190 PRIMER SEISIN— WARDSHIP. [Book II. descent, heretofore alluded to,^ was adopted into the early English tenures from the laws of Normandy, where reliefs were reduced to a certainty at the time when the customs of that province were collected, before they were transplanted on to English soil by William the Conqueror.^ Sec. 214. Primer seisin— Deflnition.— Under the ancient English tenures, where the king's tenant died seized, the crown was entitled to receive of the heir, if he were of full age, an additional sum of money, called primer seisin. When this right was first established is not known ; but we find it mentioned in the statute of Marl- bridge,^ and also in the statute De Prerogativa Begis,* and it was finally settled that the king should receive on this account one whole year's profit of the lands. ^ This was incident only to the king's tenant in capite, and was not levied against those who held of inferior or mesne lords. Blackstone says that it seems to have been little more than an additional relief, founded on the principle of the ancient law of feuds, by which, immediately upon the death of a vassal, the lord was 'entitled to enter, and take seisin or possession of the land, by way of protec- tion against intruders, till the heir appeared to claim it, and receive investiture ; during which interval the lord was entitled to the profits.® Sec. 215. Wardship — Distinction between male and female wards.— These payments were to be made only when the heir of the tenant was of full age. Being male, if under the age of twenty-one, or being a female under the age of fourteen, the lord was entitled to have in custody the body and lands of the heir, without being accountable for the profits, till the male attained the age of twenty- ' See : Ante, §§ 158, 159. am, sicut prisus iade habere ^ 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 25, consuevit. § 25; ■• 17 Edw. II., c. 6, and34Edw. III., Grand Const., c. 24, fol. 56b. c. 13. » 52 Hen. III., c. 16. A portion of ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 25, this statute reads as follows: 8 26; De hseredibus autem qui de do- 2 Inst. 9, 134; mino rege tenent in capite, sic Stat. 17 Edw. II., c. 3. observandum est; quod domi- * 2 Bl. Com. 66. nus primam hide habeat seisin- Chap. III. § 215.] MALE AND FEMALE WARDS. 191 one and the female that of sixteen. This custody was known as wardship.^ The doctrine of wardship was taken ' The writ of right of ward was abolislieil by statutes 3 & 4 WiU. IV., 0.27, §36. Heirs were considered in different lights according as they were of full age, or not. An heir of full age might hold himself in pos- ession of the inheritance imme- diately upon the death of tlie ancestor; and the lord, tliough he might take the fee together with the lieir into his hands, was to do it with such modera- tion as not to cause any dis- seisin to the heir; for the heir might resist any violence, pro- vided he was ready to pay his relief and do the otlier services. Wliere the heir to a tenant hold- ing by military service was under age, he was to be in cus- tody of liis lord till he attained his full age, which, in such ten- ure, was when he jiad complet- ed the twenty-first year. The son and heir of a sokeman was considered as of age when he had completed his fifteenth year: the son of a burgess, or one holding in burgage tenure, was esteemed of age, says Glan- ville, when he could count money and measure cloth, and do all his father's business with skill and readiness. The lord, when he had custody of the son and his heir, and of his fee, had thereby, to a certain degree, the full disposal thereof; that is, he might, during the cus- tody, present to churches, have the marriage of women, and take all other profits and inci- dents which belonged to the minor and his estate, the same as he might in his own; only he could make no alienation which would affect the inherit- ance. The heir was, in the mean time, to be maintained witli a provision suitable to his estate ; the debts of the de- ceased were to be paid in pro- portion to the estate and time it was in custody of the lord, who was not by sucli liens to be en- tirely deprived of his benefit by tlie custody: with that qualifi- cation, however, lords were bound de jure to answer for debts of the ancestor. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2ded.) 113, 114. The age of female wards was con- tended by some to be at fifteen years complete, both in mili- tary and socage tenure ; for, as the former, they said, that she might have a husband who was equal to perform the military service ; and therefore she might, with propriety, be reck- oned of age before she was twenty-one years of age. But this opinion is combated by Bracton, who says that the same principle might make her of age at an earlier period ; and he therefore lays it down, that there is no distinction between male and female wards, in the respective tenures ; and that it was only in the latter tliat females (as we have before seen of males) were to be con- sidered as of age at fifteen years; at which time, says Bracton, p. 86b, a woman is able to manage her domestic concerns, whicli is a similar description as that given by Glanville, and adopted by Bracton, of the qualifications of an heir in burgage tenure; and the latter author mentions fifteen as the proper age for the infancy of a tenant in socage to cease, because he was then able to attend to afl'airs of agricult- ure. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 284. It is laid down positively by Glanville. that if a person mar- ried his daughter and heiress without the assent of his lord, he should forfeit his inherit- ance; and that a widow who married without her lord's as- sent should in like manner for- feit her dower. These two points were recognized liy Brac- ton as remnants of the old law, which had gone out of use. We have before seen what no- tice was taken of this cruel piece of law by Magna Charta ; and it was now laid down by Brac- ton, that in both cases the lord was only entitled to a penalty; the measure of which, however. 192 MAEEIAGE OF WARDS. [Book II, from the customs of Normandy, in which it was known as garde noble.^ Among the hardships which arose from the transplanting of the feudal law from Nor- mandy into England, wardship was greatest. The first chapters of Magna Charta regulated the conduct of the lords in the exercise of their privilege of wardship, and restrained them from wasting and destroying the estates of their wards. ^ Sec. 216. Marriage— Male and female -wards.— Where the heir of the deceased tenant was a female under the age of fourteen, under the ancient English tenures such heir was directed to be married with the advice and consent of the lord and her relations, and to secure the consent of the lord a sum of money was usually required.^ Soon after the setting up of the feudal customs the king and great lords established a right to consent to. the marriage of their male wards as well as of the female ; and after- wards the right of selling the ward in. marriage, or else of receiving the price of such sale, was expressly declared by the statute of Merton.* he does not mention. Bract. 88; 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 284, 285. ' See : Basnage, vol. I., p. 326; Grand Coust., c. 33, fol. 50. ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4tli ed.) 26, i.^29 ; 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 235; 2 Id. 110. . ' Magna, Charti on marriage. — In the charter of King Henrv I. that monarch engages to waive that prerogative ; this being disregarded, it was pro- vided by the first draught of tlie Magna Charta of King Jolm, that lieirs should be married without disparage- ment, by the advice of their relations. But in the Charter of King Henry HI. the clause is merely that heirs shall be married without disparage- ment. Grand Coust., c. 'S3, fol. 55,o. *30Heu. m.,c. 6. The statute of Merton contains eleven chapters, which are ar- ranged with as little order as those of Magna Charta. To secure lords in this valuable casualty, it was now further ordained, that when the heirs were forcibly led away, or de- tained by their parents or others, in order to marry them, every layman who should so marry an heir should restore to the lord who was a loser thereby the value of the mar- riage ; that his body should be taken and imprisoned till he had made such amends ; and further, till he had satisfied tho king for the trespass. This provision related to heirs with- in tJie age of fourteen : as to those of fourteen, or above, and under fuU age, if sucli an heir married of his own accord without his lord's license, to defraud him of his marriage, and his lord offered liim rea- sonable and convenient mar- riage without disparagement : it was ordained that the lord uhould hold the land beyond the term of his age of twenty - one years, till he had received the double value of the Chap. III. § 217.] MILITARY TENURES— ABOLITION. 193 Sec. 217. Abolition of miUtary tenures.— Military tenures, and the consequences .dependent upon them, were discon- tinued during the Civil Wars in the reign of King Charles I., and during the time of the Commonwealth, and were entirely removed at the Eestoration, but a statute of Charles II., ^ which provided that the court of wards and liveries, and all wardships, liveries, primer seisins, and ousterlemains, values of forfeitures of marriages, by reason of any tenure of the king, or others, be totally taken away ; that all fines for alien ations, tenures by homage, knight-service, and escuage, and also aids for marrying the daughter, or knighting the son, and all tenures of the king in capite, be likewise taken away ; that all sorts of tenures held of the king or others be turned into free and common socage, save only tenures in frankalmoigne, copyholds, and the honorary services of grand serjeanty ; and that all tenures which should be created by the king, his heirs or successors in future, should be in free and common 2 socage. man-iage, according to the estimation of lawful men, or according to the value of any marriage that might have been hond fide offered, and proved of a certain value in the king's court. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) 260, 261. Same — ^Protection of infants against lords. — Thus far the interest of lords was secured. The following provision was to protect infants against abuse of this authority in their lords. If any lord married his ward to a villein or burgess where she would be disparaged, the ward being within the age of fourteen, and so not able to consent, then, upon the com- plaint of friends, the lord was to lose the wardship till the heir came of age ; and the profit thereof was to be con- verted to the use of the heir, under the direction of her 13 friends. But if the heir was fourteen years old and above, so as to be by law of capacity to consent to the marriage, then no penalty was to ensue. Again, if an heir, of whatever age, would not consent to marry at the request of his lord, he was not to be com- pelled ; but when he came of age, and before he received his land, he was to pay his lord as much as any would have given for the marriage and that, whether he would marry or not ; for as the marriage of an heir within age was a lawful profit to the lord, he was not to be wholly deprived of it, but was to be recompensed in one way or another. Magna Charta, c. 6; 1 Beeves' Hist.. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 261. ' 12 Charles IL, c. 24. 2 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) p. 28,. §35. CHAPTEE IV. TENURE IN THE UNITED STATES. 8ec. 218. Allodial tenures. Sec. 319. Doctrine of tenure in the United States — Socage tenures. Sec. 330. Same — Discovery foundation of title. Sec. 331. Same — Indian titles. Sec. 333. Eight of eminent domain. Sec. 233. Restriction as to use. Sec. 334. Same — Foundation of tlie doctrine. Sec. 325. Same — Application of maxim. Section 218. AUodial tenures. — Although lands in the United States are held unencumbered by any feud.al burden/ yet the idea of tenure pervades, to a consider- able degree, the law of real property in this country. Although land is essentially allodial, and every tenant in fee-simple has an absolute and unqualified title and dominion over it, yet in technical language his estate is said to be in fee-simple, and the tenure free and common socage, — words which imply a feudal relation, although such a relation has ceased to exist in any form in this country, and in several of the states the lands have been See : Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill. & J. (Md.) 443 ; Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ; B.C. 77 Am. Dec. 435 ; Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 10 N. Y, 68, 81 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 278 ; Morgan v. King, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 9, reversed on another point in 35 N. Y. 454 ; CorneU v. Lamb, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 652; Bradley v. Dwight, 62 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 300 ; Cook V. Hammond, 4 Mas. C. C. 478; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 24 ; 1 Story, Const. (4th ed.) 160. "Fealty is not, in fact, dne upon 194 any tenure in New York. It is altogether fictitious. It is re- tained by statute as to lands holden in socage, and abolished as to all grants made directly from the state, but the right to distrain is not impaired by the statute. It remains as at com- mon law, by which fealty was incident to every tenure, and the right of distress incident to fealty ; and even if the latter be taken away, yet, where it would have existed at common law, distress may be made." Cornell v. Lamb. 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 652. Chap. IV. § 219.] TENUEES IN THIS COUNTRY. 195 declared by statute to be allodial.^ In England there is no allodial tenure, because all the land is held mediately or immediately of the king. The words tenancy in fee- simple are there very properly used to express the most absolute dominion which a man can have over his real property.^ In this country, in theory at least, all valid individual title to land is to be traced to a grant from the crown ; ^ because, prior to the Eevolution, every acre of land in this country was held mediately or immediately by the grants from the crown.* Since the Eevolution, lands in this country are held either from a state govern- ment or from the government of the United States.^ Sec. 219. Doctrine of tenure in the United States — Socage tenures.— In the United States the tenure of lands has always been free socage tenure, in which the lands were held by a fixed and determined service, which was neither military nor in the power of the lord to vary at his pleasure. It was the certainty and pacific nature of the service or Awij which made this species of tenure such a safeguard against the wanton exactions of the feudal lords, and rendered it of such inestimable value to the ancient English. They regarded it as of the utmost importance that their tenures be changed by a knight-service into tenure by socage. Socage tenures were, as we have heretofore seen," of feudal origin ; and they retain some of the leading properties of feuds. But most of the feudal incidents and consequences of socage ' Matthews v. Ward, 10 GUI. & J. Commonwealth v. Charleston, 18 (Md.) 443 ; Mass. (1 Pick.) 180 ; s.o. 11 Am. Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Deo. 161. Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 92 ; = De Armas v. Mayor of New Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. St. Orleans, 5 La. 133 ; 493 ; Johnson v. Hart, 13 John. (N. Y.) Arriso'n v. Harmstad, 2 Pa. St. 77 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 280; 191 • Jackson v. Ingraham, 4 John. Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367. (N. Y.) 163 ; ' 2 Bl Com. 45 ; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. (3 SKent Com. (13th ed.) 390. Dall.) 419, 470; bk. 1 L. ed. 3 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. (2 440, 462. Dall.) 419, 470; bk. 1 L. ed. See: Barlow u. Lambert, 28 Ala. 440, 462. 704 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 374 ; * Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. (2 People v. Van Rensselaer, 8 DaU.) 419, 470 ; bk. 1 L. ed. Barb. (N. Y.) 180, 189 ; s.c. 9 440, 462. N. Y. 291 See : Commonwealth v. Alger, " See : Ante, § 301. 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 58, 68 ; 196 FOUNDATION OF TITLE— INDIAN TITLES. [BOOK XL tenure have been expressly abolished by statute in this country.^ The only feudal fictions and services which are retained in any part of the United States systern is the feudal principle that the lands are held of some superior or lord to whom the obligation of fealty and to pay a determined rent are due. Where this doctrine prevails, the lord paramount of all socage land is none other than the people of the state, to whom, and them only, the duty of fealty was or is to be rendered.^ Sec. 220. Same— Discovery foundation of title.— We have already seen,^ that the title to all the lands in America was originally held by England and the other nations of Europe by what was denominated title by discovery.* The European nations, making conquests on the Ameri- can continent, asserted the exclusive right of granting the soil to individuals, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy ; ^ and this principle was adopted by the people of the United States after attaining their sovereign independence.® Sec. 221. Same— Indian titles.— From this theory of the foundation of the title to the lands in the United States, it follows that the Indian title, being simply that of occupation, is subordinate to the absolute ultimate title of the government.^ The Indian inhabitants of this ' In Connecticut they were abol- Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) ished by statute in 1793, and 337 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 493 ; the statutes as late as 1838, p. United States v. Cambuston, 61 389, declare that "Every pro- U. S. (30 How.) 59; bk. 15 L. prietor in fee-simple of lands " ed. 838 ; shall have an absolute and Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41 direct dominion and property U. S. (16 Pet.) 367 ; bk. 10 L. in the same ; and they are de- ed. 997 ; declared to be " vested with an Johnson v. Mcintosh, 31 U. S. (8 allodial title." Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 681. In New York they were abolish- ^ 4 Johnson ■;;. Mcintosh, 31 U. S. ed by the act of 1787, and were (8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed, entirely annihilated by the New 681. York Revised Statutes. 4 Johnson v. Mcintosh, 31 U. S. See : 3 Kent Com. (14th ed.) (8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 378. 681. * 3 Kent Com. (14th ed.) 510. « See : Brashear v. Williams, 10 » See : Ante, § 13. Ala. 630 ; * See : People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. Brown v. Wenham, 51 Mass. (10 373: , Met.) 495. Jackson r. Ingraham, 4 John. ' Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 163 ; Ch. (N. Y.) 607 ; Chap. IV. § 222.] EMINENT DOMAIN. 197 country, not having an absolute title in their possessions, are of course incapable of transferring a fee-simple title in land to another.^ Sec. 222. RigM of eminent domain.— Although the title to lands in this country is absolute, and the owners there- of possess the whole title, yet every person who holds land in this country holds it subject to the right and power of the sovereign state in which it is located, or of the federal government, to appropriate it to particular uses, for the purpose of promoting the general welfare ; ^ that is, the land must be surrendered to the government, either in whole or in part, when public necessities, evinced according to the established forms of law, shall demand such surrender.^ This right upon the part of the government, to require a surrender of individual property for the common welfare, is founded upon the principle that individual interests must be subservient to those of the public, and must yield when the public exigency requires ; * and all grants of land made by a state or by an indi- vidual are subject to the right of eminent domain, unless that right is specially relinquished.^ The question of the right of the state to the exercise of the power of eminent domain will be hereafter fully discussed. Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U. S. (1 Otto) 367; bk. 23 L. ed. (8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 449. 681. » People ■;;. Mayor of New York, 33 See : Stephens v. Westwood, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 103. Ala. 375 ; * See : Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. FeUows V. Lee, 5 Den. (N. Y.) Hartford R. Co., 17 Conn. 454; 638. s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 556 ; • See : Clark v. WiUiams, 36 Mass. Walker v. Gatlin, 13 Fla. 15 ; (19 Pick.) 500 ; Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Goodell V. Jackson, 20 John. (N. Co., 18 Min. 155, 163 ; Y.) 693 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. Ash v. Cummings, 50 N. H. 351 ; 591 ; Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U. S. Heyward v. New York, 7 N. Y. (8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 314, 335 ; 681. Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige Ch. (N. « See : Gilmer v. Limepoint, 18 Cal. Y.) 137 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 239 ; 417 ; Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. Beekman w. Saratoga &S. R. Co., 404 • 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 45 ; s.c. 33 People V. Smith, 21 N. Y. 595 ; Am. Dec. 679. Taylor v. Porter, 4 HUl. (N. Y.) » See : Illinois & Mich. Canal Co. v. 140 ; s.c. 40 Am. Deo. 374 ; Chicago, 14 111. 314, 334 ; Bailey v. Miltenberger, 31 Pa. St. California Tel. Co. v. Alta Tel. ST- Co., 33 Cal. 398; Kohl'u United States, 91 U. S. Matter of N. Y. & H. E. R. Co., 77N. Y. 348. 198 USE OF PROPERTY— RESTRICTION ON. [Book H Sec. 223. Restriction as to use.— Although the owner of land is supposed to have the whole title, yet it is held subject, not only to the power of eminent domain, but also on the condition, and occupied with the tacit under- standing, that the owner shall so deal with it as not to cause injury to the person or property of another, or to the rights or interests of the community. ^ This is on the well-known maxim of the common law, sic utere tuo ut alienum non Isedas, so use your own as not to injure another's property.^ 1 Commonwealth v. Tewksbury, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 55 ; Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 86. " Kerr's " Adjudicated Words, Phrases, and AppUed Max- ims." See : Rouse ■;;. Martin, 75 Ala. 515 : s.c. 51 Am. Rep. 463 ; Bannon v. State, 49 Ark. 167 ; s.c. 4 S. W. Rep. 655 ; Martia v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 193 ; St. Louis, I. M. & G. R. Co. •;;. Hecht. 38 Ark. 367 ; Ex parte Koser, 60 Cal. 214 ; Union Pac. Co. v. De Bush, 12 Colo. 294 ; s.c. 20 Pac. Rep. 753; 3 L. R. A. 350 ; Fallon V. SchUling, 29 Kan. 293, 395 ; s.c. 4 Am. Rep. 643 ; Branson v. Labrot, 81 Ky. 641 ; Mayor of Baltimore v. Warren Mfg. Co., 59 Md. 106 ; Boyd V. Conklin, 54 Mich. 583 ; s.c. 53 Am. Rep. 831 ; 20 N. W. Rep. 595 ; Paterson v. Wabash, St. L. & Pac. R. Co., 54 Mich. 91 ; s.c. 19 N. W. Rep. 761 ; People's Ice Co. v. Steamer Excelsior, 44 Mich. 239 ; s.c. 6 N. W. Rep. 636 ; Kruegert). Farrant, 39 Minn. 385, 388 ; s.c. 43 Am. Rep. 223 ; 13 N. W. Rep. 158 ; Keofe V. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 307 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 393 ; 3 Cent L. J. 170 ; Morgan v. Cox, 33 Mo. 373 ; s.c. 66 Am. Deo. 623 ; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 238 ; Boynton v. Longley, 19 Nev. 69 ; s.c. 6 Pac. Rep. 437 ; Garland v. Towne, 55 N. H. 55 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 164 ; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 333, 336 ; Lord V. Carbon Iron Co. , 38 N. J. Eq. (11 Stew.) 453, 458 ; Demarest v. Hardham, 34 N. J. Eq. (7 Stew.) 469, 474 ; Gawtry v. Leland, 81 N. J. Eq. (4 Stew.) 385, 390 ; Thomas Iron Co. v. AUenton Mining Co., 38 N. J. Eq. (1 Stew.) 77, 85 ; Ross V. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E. Gr.) 394, 398 ; s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 654 ; Davidson v. Isham, 9 N. J. Eq. (1 Stock.) 186, 189 ; State V. Wheeler, 44 N. J. L. (15 Vr.) 88, 91 ; Weller v. Snover, 43 N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 341, 344 ; McGuire v. Grant, 35 N. J. L. (1 Dutch.) 356, 361 ; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 49 ; Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Lee, 33 N. J. L. (2 Zab.) 243, 347 ; Sinnickson v. Johnson, 17 N. J. L. (3 Harr.) 139, 144; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 184 ; Buffalo East Side R. Co. v. Bufifalo St. R. Co., Ill N. Y. 133, 141 ; s.c. 19 N. Y. S. R. 574 ; Edwards v. N. Y. & H. R. Co., 98 N.Y.345;s.c.50 Am.Rep.659; Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476 ; s.c. 10 Am. Rep. 623 ; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 47, 51, aflf'g 43 How. Prao. (N. Y.) 385 ; rev'g 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 86 ; Hay V. echoes Co., 3 N. Y, 159 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec. 279; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 72 ; Tillinghast v. Troy & Boston R. Co., 48 Hun (N. Y.) 420, 425 ; Panton v. Holland, 17 John. (N. Y.) 92 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 869 ; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 249 ; Worthington v. Parker, 11 Daly (N. Y.) 545, 551 ; Chap. IV. § 224.] FOUNDATION OF DOCTRINE. 199 Sec. 224. Same— Foundation of doctrine.— This condition grows out of tlie nature of well-ordered civil society. All property, no matter how absolute and unqualified may be the title, is held under the implied condition that its use is to be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to an equal enjoyment of others, having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community. Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall pre- vent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable restraints and regulations established by law as the Leg- islature, under the governing and controlling power vested in them by the constitution, may think necessary and expedient.^ This is very different from the right of eminent domain, — the right of a government to take and appropriate private property to public use, whenever BeU T. Norfolk S. R. Co., 101 N. C. 31 ; s.o. 7 S. E. Rep. 467 ; State I'. Yopp, 97 N. C. 477 ; s.c. 2 Am. St. Rep. 305 ; 3 S. E. Rep. 458 ; Lawton V. Giles, 90 N. C. 381 ; Fulmer v. WiUiams, 123 Pa. St. 191 ; s.c. 15 Atl. Rep. 736 ; 1 L. R. A. 603 ; 33 W. N. C. 369 ; 46 Leg. Int. 37 ; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Saunders, 113 Pa. St. 136 ; s.c. 57 Am. Rep. 445 ; 6 Atl. Rep. 453 ; 4 Cent. Rep. 481 ; Pennsylvania Lead Co.'s Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 127 ; s.c. 43 Am. Rep. 534; Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. St. 333 ; Stephens v. Martins (Pa.), 17 Atl. Rep. 243 ; s.c. 23 W. N. C. 475 ; 46 Leg. Int 311 ; Hudson V. DLsmukes, 77 Va. 243 ; Davis V. Central Vt. R. Co., 55 Vt. 93 ; s.o. 45 Am. Rep. 590 ; Brunswick-Balke CoUender Co. v. Rees, 69 Wis. 443 ; s.c. 34N. W. Rep. 733 ; Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461, 469 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 637 ; 17 N. W. Rep. 389 ; Woodruff V. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. , 18 Fed. Rep. 753, 809 : Dean v. McCarthy, 3 Upp. Can. Q. B. 448; s.c. 1 Thomp. on . Neg. 116 ; Grocers' Co. r. Donne, 3 Bing. N. C. 34, 41 ; s.c. 33 Eng. C. L. 25, 29; Humphries v. Brogden, 13 Q. B. 739: s.o. 64 Eng. C. L. 738; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 263, 266 ; Nichols V. Marshland, L. R. 10 Exch. 3.W ; s.c. 44 L. J. (Exch.) 134 ; 23 W. R. 6D3 ; 33 L. T. N. S. 265 ; 14 Moak's Eng. Rep. 538 ; 3 Cent. L. J. 523 ; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 186, § 4 ; s.c. on App. 2 Exch. Div. 1 ; 46 L. J. 174; 19 Moak's Eng. Rep. 335 ; 4 Cent. L. J. 319 ; Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 4 Ex. D. 5 ; s.c. 48 L. J. C. L. 109 ; 39 L. T. N. S. 355 ; 27 W. R. 95 ; Fletcher v. Rylands, 3 Hurl. & Colt. 774 ; s.c. L. R. 1 Exch. 265 ; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 2 ; sub noni. Rylands v. Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. L. 330 ; Cooley, Const. Lim. (.jth ed.), § 708; Pollock on Torts, 93, 109 ; Pom. Mun. L. (3d ed.), § 915 ; 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed., 499, n. • Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass, (7 Cush.) 53, 85. 200 APPLICATION OF MAXIM. [BOOK II. the public exigency requires it ; which can be done only on condition of providing a reasonable compensation therefor. The power we allude to is rather the public power, the power vested in the Legislature by the consti- tution, to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be good for the wel- fare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the Sec. 225. Same— Application of maxim.— This maxim restrains a man from using his own property to the prej- udice of his neighbor, and is not usually applicable to a mere omission to act, but rather to some affirmative act or course of conduct which amounts to, or results in, an invasion of another's rights.^ Where this maxim is ap- plied to landed property, it is subject to a certain modi- fication, it being necessary for the plaintiff to show, not only that he has sustained damage, but that the de- fendant has caused it by going beyond what is neces- sary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.^ ' Commonwealth v. Alger ,61 Mass. This maxim was once unceremoni- (7 Cush.) 53, 85. ously discarded by Justice Erle. 'Krueger v. Farrant, 39 Minn. 385; He said : "The maxim is mere s.o. 13 N. W. Rep. 158. verbiage. A party may damage ' West Cumberland Iron Co. v. property where the law per- Kenyon, 11 L. R. 6 Ch. Div. mits, and may not where the 773 ; s.c. 33 Moak's Eng. Rep. law prohibits, so that the 821. maxim can never be applied Cited in Pennsylvania Coal Co. till the law is ascertained, and V. Sanderson, 113 Pa. St. 136 ; when it has been, the maxim s.c. 57 Am. Rep. 445 ; 6 Atl. is superfluous." Rep. 453 ; 4 Cent. Rep. 481 ; 103 Bonomi v. Backhouse, 36 L. J. Pa. St. 307 ; 94 Pa. St. 302 ; 86 Q. B. 388. Pa. St. 401. BOOK III. CORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. CHAPTER I. ESTATES IN GENERAL. Sec. 326. Definition of estate. Sec. 227. The origin of estates. Sec. 238. Estate in land — Definition. Sec. 229. Same— Division of. Sec. 230. Freehold estates in land — Definition. Sec. 231. Same — Qualities of freehold estate. Sec. 233. Same— Seisin. Sec. 333. Same— Entry. Sec. 334. Same — Livery of seisin. Sec. 335. Same — Disseisin. Sec. 336. Same — Same — Kinds of disseisin. Sec. 337. Same — Same — What constitutes disseisin. Sec. 338. Abatement— Eflfect of. Sec. 239. Abeyance of freehold. Sec. 240. Who may be freeholders. Sec. 341. Same — Aliens. Sec. 242. Same — Same — Federal and state statutes. Sec. 243. Same — Corporations. Sec. 344. Division of estates. Section 226. Definition of estate.— In its popular and most comprehensive meaning, the word " estate" is genus generaUssimum, and includes, not only real and personal property,^ but also the interest a person may have in ' Thornton v. Mulquinne, 12 Iowa Weatherhead's Lessee v. Basker- 549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548, 551 ; ville, 52 U. S. (11 How.) 329 ; Mably v. Stainback, 1 Mart. (N. bk. 13 L. ed. 717 ; C.) 75 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 545 ; Archer v. Deneale, 36 U. S. (1 Turbett v. Turbett's Ex'rs, 8 Pet.) 585 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 272 ; Yeates (Pa.) 187 ; s.c. 3 Am. Lambert v. Pajne, 7 U. S. (8 Cr.) Dec. 369, 371 ; 97, 130 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 377. 201 202 DEFINITION OF ESTATE. [Book III. such property, ■^ as owner or otherwise,^ from absolute ownership down to a naked possession.^ The term not only comprehends property of every descrip- tion,* but includes a person's condition in respect to property,^ and the very thing itself of which a person is the owner, whether personal or real,^ are so construed by courts in interpreting wills. ^ In its more restricted ' Lamar v. Sheffield, 66 Ga. 711 ; Kutter V. Smith, 69 U. S. (3 Wall.) 491 ; hk. 17 L. ed. 830 ; 2 Bl. Com. 103. * He need not have the fee or even a freehold. See : Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Inhabitants of Stow, 13 Mass. 463, 364. 3 See : Moody v. Farr, 83 Miss. 193, 195; Jackson v. Parker, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 73, 81. It includes every possible estate in land except a mere chattel interest. Jackson v. Parker, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 73, 81. The possession of land is an in- terest which may be sold on an execution against the person having the possession. See : Jackson v. Graham, 3 Cai. (N. Y.) 188, 189 ; Jackson v. Garnsey, 16 John. (N. Y.) 189, 193. * See : Archer v. Deneal, 36 U. S. (1 Pet.) 5S5 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 373. ' Indebtedness as well as owner- ship. — Thus we speak of the "estate" of a deceased or an insolvent person. In these cases indebtedness as well as ownei-ship is a part of the idea, the debts and assets together constituting the estate. Davis V. Elkins, 9 La. 143. s See : SeUers v. Sellers, 35 Ala. 335, 341. ' See : Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13 Iowa 549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548, 551; Laing v. Barbour, 119 Mass. Kf)Q 535 • KeUo'g V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 333 335 * BuUard v.' Goffe, 37 Mass. 353, 256-257 ; Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 631. Jackson v. Delancy, 13 John. (N. Y.) 536 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 403; Mably v. Stainback. 1 Mart. (N. C.) 75 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 545 ; Turbett v. Turbett's Ex'rs, 8 Yeates (Pa.) 187 ; s.c. 3 Am. Deo. 369, 371 ; Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7 U.S. (3 Or.) 97-130 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 377, 390; Busby V. Busby, 1 TJ. S. (1 DaU.) 336; bk. 1 L. ed. Ill; Blagge V. Miles, 1 Story C.C. 436, 438; Lloyd V. Lloyd, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 458; Doe ex d. Evans v. Evans, 9 Ad. & E. 719 ; s.c. 36 Eiig. C. L. 378 ; Rideaut v. Paine, 3 Atk. 486 ; Hawksworth v. Hawksworth, 37 Beav. 1 ; Voev. Chapman, 1 H. Bl. 333; s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 755 ; Rae V. Harvey, 5 Burr. 3638 ; Sanderson v. Dobson, 7 C. B. 81 ; s.c. 63 Eng. C. L. 80 ; Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 306 ; Jongsma v. Jongsma, 1 Cox Eq. 363; O'Toole V. Browne, 3 El. & Bl. 573 ; B.C. 77 Eng. C. L. 571 ; Bridgewater v. Bolton, 6 Mod. 106; Mayor of Hamilton v. Hodson, 6 Moore P. C. C. 76 ; Popham V. Banfield, 1 Salk. 336 ; Tilley v. Simpson, 3 T. R. 659 note (b). Holdfast V. Morten, 1 T. R. 411 ; S.C. 1 Rev. Rep. 243 ; Barry v. Edgenorth, 3 Pr. Wms. 534; Walker v. Denne, 3 Ves. 179 ; S.C. 3 Rev. Rep. 185 ; Caloraft v. Roebuck. 1 Ves. 336. Land held without color of title. — It is held in Austin ■;;. Rutland R. Co., 45 Vt. 815, that a be- quest of a testator's " estate. Chap. I. § 226.] RESTRICTED MEANING OF ESTATE. 203 sense the word estate is used to denote land.^ The cur- rent use of the word is to denote the end, extent, degree, real or personal," does not ap- ply to laud of which he is in possession without color of title. Under the North Caro- lina Revised Code this term does not embrace land. Smithdeal v. Smith, 64 N. C. 52. Tlie word " estate " is the most general, significant, and opera- tive that can be used in a will, and, according to all the cases, may embrace every degree and species of interest. If the word " estate " stand by itself , as if a man devise " all his estate- to A," it carries a fee from its established and legal import and operation. Standing thus per se, it marks the intention of the testator, passes the in- heritance to the devisee, and controls the rule in favor of the heir at law. It is true that this word, when coupled with things that are personal only, shall be restrained to the per- sonalty : Noscitur a sociis. The word " estate" may also, from the particular phrase- ology connected with the ap- parent intent of the testator, assume a local form and habi- tation, so as to Umit its sense to the laud itself. Here un- common particularity of de- scription is requisite, so as to leave the mind perfectly satisfied that the thing only was in contemplation, and nothing more. A description merely local cannot be ex- tended beyond locality, with- out departing from the obvious import of the words, and thus making, instead of construing, the will of the testator. But when no words are made use of to manifest the intention of the testator that the term "estate" should be taken, not in a general, but in a limited signification, then it will pass a fee ; because, the law de- clares that it designates and comprehends both the subject and the interest. Nay, such is the legal import and operation of the word "estate," that it carries a fee, even when ex- pressions of locality are annexed. To illustrate this position by apposite and ad- judged cases : If a man in his will, says, "I give all my estate to A," it has been held that the whole of the testator's interest in such particular lands passed to the devisee, though no words of limitation are added. 3 Pr. Wms. 524. So the word " estate " was held to carry a fee, though it denoted locality, "as my estate at Kirby Hall." Tuflfnel^. Page, 3 Atk. 37; s.c. Barn. Cha. Rep. 9. On which Lord Hardwicke ob- served, that though this is a locaUty, yet the question is, whether it is such a locality as is sufficient to show the testa- tor's intention merely to be to convey the lands to themselves, and not the interest in them. He was of opinion that the words were descriptive both of the local situation, and the quantity of interest. Same — Lord Talljot observed, in Ibbetson v. Beckwith, that the word "estate," in its proper, legal sense, means the inherit- ance, and carries a fee. Why, indeed, may not locality and interest be connected, and the same words express and convey both? To exclude interest in the subject, the expres- sions coupled with the word "estate" must be so restrict- ive and local in their nature, as to convey solely the idea of locality, and not to comprehend the quantum of interest, with- out doing violence to the words and intentions of the testator. Besides, it is a just remark, repeatedly made by Lord Hard- wicke and Lord Mansfield, that where a general devise of land I See : Sellers v. Sellers, 35 Ala. 235, 241 ; Van Rensselaer v. Boucher, 5 Den. (N. Y.)40; Lambert v. Paine, 7 U. S. (3 Cr.) 97 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377. 204 ORIGIN OF ESTATES. [Book III. and quality of interest which a person has in real property.^ Sec. 227. The origin of estates.— The distinction between absolute dominion, or absolute ownership, such .as the law permits to be had in chattels, and an estate, to which the English law restricts the ownership of land, is no doubt referable to the universal existence in England of tenure. But the existence of estates of inheritance was suggested, and made possible, by the indestructibility of their com- monest and earliest known subject. There are three ancient sources of lawful rights of property in England — (1) the common law ; (2) the statute law ; and (3) customs allowed by the law.^ To these must, for many practical purposes, be added — (4) the course of equity, as devised and consolidated by the Court of Chancery. This last is the origin of equitable estates, which seem now to have a good claim to be also styled lawful. But the circum- stances of their origin have impressed upon them some important characteristics, which they still in a great measure retain, by which they are distinguished from legal estates, commonly so called, and which make it improper to apply to them the epithet ' ' legal. " All lawful estates must be traced to one or another of these sources. The first is the source of common-law estates ; the second is the source of entails ; the third is the source of copy- hold and customary estates ; and the fourth is the source of equitable estates. is narrowed down to an estate bear on this subject. They are for life, the intention of the collected in a note by the editor testator is commonly defeated, of Willes's Rep. 396. because people do not dis- See : Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7 tinguish between real and per- U. S. (3 Cr.) 97, 134 ; bk. 3 L. sonal property ; and, indeed, ed. 377, 390. "common sense would never > See : Estate of Coleman, 31 N. Y. teach a man the difference ; " Daily Reg. 505, No. 63 ; and, therefore, judges have Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd. endeavored to make the word 555 ; " estate," in a wUl, amount to 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 435 ; a devise of the whole interest, 1 Prest. Est. 7, 30. unless unequivocal and strong '^ " Conauetudo is one of the main expressions are added to restrict triangles of the laws of Eng- it(< general signification. It land, those laws being divided would be a laborious and use- into common law, statute law, less task to enter into a minute and custom." and critical investigation of the 1 Co. litt. (19th ed.) 110b. great variety of cases which Chap. I. §§ 228, 229, 230.] DIVISION OF ESTATES. 205 Sec. 22S. Estate in land— Definition.— An estate in land is such an interest as the owner ^ or tenant has therein. It is called in Latin status, because it signifies the con- dition or circumstance in which the owner stands with regard to his property.^ Sec. 229. Same— Division of.— To ascertain the owner- ship of property with precision and accuracy, estates in land may be regarded in a threefold view, to wit : (1) with regard to the quantity and quality of interest which the tenant has in the tenement ; * (2) vsdth regard to the time at which the quantity of interest is to be enjoyed ; and (3) with regard to the number and connec- tion of the tenants.* The quantity of interest or estate signifies the time of continuance, or degree of interest, which the tenant has in the tenement ; ^ and the quality of the estate has reference to the manner of its enjoy- ment, as whether it be absolute, solely common, in co- parceny, or in joint tenancy.^ The quantity of interest which a tenant has in the tenement is measured by its duration and extent, and this occasions the primary divi- sion of estates into such as are a freehold and such as are less than a freehold.'' Sec. 230. Freehold estate in lands— Definition.— An estate of freehold is an interest in lands, or other real property, held by a free tenure, for the life of the tenant,^ or that of seme other person, or for some uncertain period. It is called liberum tenementum, frank tenement, or freehold ; and was formerly described to be such an estate as could only be created by livery of seisin,^ a ceremony similar to the investiture of the feudal law, and one which a freeman 1 Van Rensselaer v. Pouclier, 5 " Prest. Est. 31. Den. (N. Y.) 40. See : Post, " Joint Estates. " See : 3 Bl. Com. 103 ; ' See : Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 345, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 35, 40 ; 2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb ; 3 Bl. Com. 103 ; 1 Prest. Est. 430. 3 Crab. R. Prop. 2. ' See • 3 Bl Com. 103 ; * See : Roseboom i;.Vechten, 5 Den. 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 345 ; (N. Y.) 414 ; 1 Prest. Est. 30. 3 Bl. Com. 104 ; « Walsingham's Casfe, 2 Plowd. 555 ; 4 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 33. 3 Bl. Com. 103 ; '2 Bl. Com, 104 ; 1 Inst. 345a. 1 Prest. Est. 309. 5 1 Prest. Est. 31. 206 FREEHOLD ESTATES. [Book III. might constitutionally hold in reference to its tenure, and of course excluded all lands held in villeinage, even though held for the term of a life.^ This term is used in two senses ; first as indicating the quantity of interest, and second as indicating the quality of the tenure.^ But since the introduction of certain modern conveyances, by which an estate of freehold may be created without livery of seisin, this description is not sufficient.^ Sec. 231. Same— Qualities of freehold estate.— There are two qualities essentially requisite to the existence of every freehold estate. First, immobility, — that is, the subject- matter must either be land, or some interest issuing out of or annexed to land ; second, a sufficient legal indeter- minate duration, for if the utmost period of time to which an estate can last is fixed and determined, it is not an estate of freehold.* Thus if lands are conveyed to a man and his heirs forever, or for the term of his natural life, or for the term of the life of another, or until he is married, or goes to Eome, or the like, the estate created will be a freehold estate ; but if lands are limited to a man for five hundred years, or for ninety-nine years, if he shall live so long, he has not an estate of freehold.^ Sec. 232. Same— Seisin.— The term "seisin" is applied to the possession of an estate of freehold,^ and the pos- sessor of such an estate is said to be "seized" thereto.^ 1 1 Prest. Est. 209, 213. did alicujus quod quis tenet ad * 2 Wood Lect. 5. certum numerum annorum, ^ Britt. , c. 32 ; mensium, vel diorum ; licet ad 1 Inst. 48a. terminum centum annorum, •* 2 Bl. Com. 886. quae excedit vitas hominum. ' The law is precisely the same now Bract. 207a ; 1 Inst. 42a. as when Braoton wrote : " Et * Bearoe v. Jackson, 4 Mass. 408 ; sciendum quod Uberum tene- Durando v. Durando, 82 Barb. mentum est id quod quis tenet (N. Y.) 529 ; sibi et haeredibus suis, in feodo, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 153a. et haereditate, vel in feodo See : Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 3 J. tantum, sibi et haeredibus suis. J. Marsh (Ky.) 429 ; s.o. 19 Am. Item ut Uberum tenementum, Deo. 139 ; sicut ad vitam tantum, vel Slater v. Eawson, 47 Mass. (6 eodem modo ad tempus inde- Met.) 439 : terminatum, absque aliqua Towle v. Ayer, 8 N. H. 57, 58 ; certa temporis prsefinitione ; Van Rensselaer v. Boucher, 5 sc. Donee quid fiat vel non Den. (N. Y.) 85. fiat ; ut si dicatur. Do tali ' Barr v. Gratz, 7 U. S. (4 Wheat.) donee ei providero. Liberum 213 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 553 ; autem tenementum non potest Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 2 JJ.Marsh. Chap. I. § 233.] SEISIN AND ENTRY. 207 Anciently the possession of a feud was called seisin, which denoted the completion of the investiture by which the tenant was admitted to the land. Upon the intro- duction of the feudal law into England, the word seisin was only applied to the possession of an estate of freehold, in contradistinction to that precarious kind of possession by which tenants in villeinage held their land, which was considered to be the possession of their lords, in whom the freehold continued.^ Where a freehold estate is conveyed to a person by feoffment, with livery of seisin, or by any of those conveyances which derive their effect from the statute of uses, he acquires a seisin in deed, and a freehold in deed. But where a freehold estate is de- volved upon a person by act of law, as by descent, he only acquires a seisin in law, that is, a right to the pos- session, and his estate is called a freehold in law ; for he must make an actual entry on the land to acquire a seisin and a freehold in deed.^ The prevailing doctrine in the United States is that no actual entry is necessary, either by an heir or a grantee, in order to give him a seisin in deed ; provided the ancestor or grantor was seized at the time, or the possession was vacant, and the ancestor or grantor had the right. ^ Sec. 233. Same^Bntry.— According to the common-law rule, entry must be made by the person having right, or some one authorized by him.* The mere act of going on 429 ; S.C. 19 Am. Dec. 139 ; Barr v. Gratz, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) Warren v. Childs, 11 Mass. 232, 313, 331 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 553 ; 325 ; Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) Wells V. Prince, 4 Mass. 68 ; 239 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545 ; Englishbe v. Helmuth, 3 N. Y. 394. 4 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 385-389. 1 Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 107 ; •* Authority to enter may be given Tiy Grendon v. Bishop of Lincoln, 3 parol, and if entry is made by Plowd. 503 ; a stranger in the name and on Dissert. , c. 1 ; behalf of the owner, who af ter- 1 Inst. i53a, 200b. ward ratifies the act, this is ' See : 1 Inst. 266b. sufficient. ' Green v. Chelsea, 41 Mass. (2 Pick.) Richards v. Folsom, 11 Me. 70 ; rji . Tolman v. Emerson, 21 Mass. (4 Maffoun v. Lapham, 38 Mass. (31 Pick.) 160. Kck.) 135 ; When part of the heirs enter on lands Bates V. No'rcross, 31 Mass. (14 that descends to them, their Pick.) 334 ; entry is presumed to be accord- Wells V. Prince, 4 Mass. 64 ; ing to their legal title, and it Jackson V. Howe, 14 John. (N. Y.) inures to the benefit of all, so 405 ■ that aU are seized unless those 20B LIVERY OF SEISIN. [Book III, the land was not a legal entry, sufficient to vest the actual seisin in the person who had the right, but, in order to constitute a legal entry, the person was required to enter with that intent and to do some act and show some intention.^ The act was required to be such an one that, in a stranger, would have been trespass.^ In those states where the common-law doctrine has been adopted, the same rules prevail. Where the lands all lie in one county the entry of the heir upon any part of the estate will give him a seisin in deed of all the lands lying in that county, but where the lands lie in different counties there must be an entry in each county.^ Sec. 234. Same— Livery of seisin.— At common law the ceremony of livery of seisin was necessary to vest title.* This custom was never adopted in this country ; ^ or if it was, it has been wholly superseded by the use of deeds acknowledged and recorded, "^ which are equivalent to livery of seisin.^ The deed acknowledged and recorded gives to the grantee legal investiture of the land con- veyed, and has the same effect as if the grantor entered upon the land and gave actual seisin by the formal delivery of the accustomed turf and twig in the ancient ceremony.^ In this country actual entry on the land by who enter claim adversely, and , to be tried by the pares comi- oust the others. tatus. Means v. Vf ells, 53 Mass. (13 Met.) See : ■ Gilbert's Ten. 39-40 ; 356. Stearns' Real Act. 3. 1 Ford V. Grey, 6 Mod. 44 ; < 3 Bl. Com. 315, 316. This was abol- PoUard v. Jekyl, 1 Plowd. 93 ; ished by statutes 8 & 9 Vict., o. 1" Inst. 345b. 106, § 3. 2 Holly V. Brown, 14 Conn. 255, = Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474, 369, 370 ; 488 ; Robison v. Swett, 3 Me. 316 ; Davis v. Mason, 36 U. S. (1 Pet.) Altemas v. Campbell, 9 Watts 503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339 ; (Pa.) 38 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 84. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 345b. « Higbee u.'Eice, 5 Mass. 353 ; s.c. 3 1 Inst. 15a, 353b. 4 Am. Dec. 63 ; Feoffments were anciently made Pidge v. Tyler, 4 Mass. 541. on tie land, before the j}ares ' Higbee v: Rice, 5 Mass. 344, 353 ; curioe; and the entry of the s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 63 ; feoffee was recorded in the Bradstreet v. Clarke, 13 "Wend. records of the lord's court. Af- (N. Y.) 603, 677. tertvards, when the attestation » See : Ward v. FuUer, 33 Mass. (15 of the 2Mres curice was not held Pick.) 165 ; necessary, that of the pares Goodwin v. Hubbard, 15 Mass. comitatus was ; and hence an 314 ; entry in each county was still McKee v. Pf out, 3 U. S. (3 Dall.) held necessary, because it was 486, 489 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690. Chap. I. §§ 235, 236.] SEISIN AND DISSEISIN. 209 an heir or a grantee is not generally necessary to con- summate his title and give him a seisin in deed, where the ancestor or grantor was, at the time, seized of the property, or the possession was vacant, the ancestor or grantor having the right to the possession,^ gives the legal presumption in this country that the seisin follows the title and that they correspond with each other. ^ Sec. 235. Same— Disseisin.— Disseisin has been defined by Lord Littleton as " where a man entereth into lands or tenements, where his entry is not congeable, and ousteth him which hath the freehold." ^ According to its accepted and general meaning, a disseisin is said to be an entry into the lands and tenements of another, accom- panied with expulsion or ouster of such other from the freehold,* either by first taking the profits, or secondly, by claiming the inheritance.^ Sec. 236. Same— Same— Kinds of disseisia.— There are two kinds of disseisin recognized ; first, a disseisin in spite of > Green v. Chelsea, 41 Mass. (3 Pick.) 71; Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) 239 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545. Compare : Jackson v. Woodman, 29 Me. 266 ; Jackson V. Howe, 14 John. (N. Y.) 405; Hinman v. Cranmer, 9 Pa. St. 40. 2 FarweU v. Eogere, 99 Mass. 33 ; Barr v. Gratz, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 213 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 553. Presnlnptioii of seisin from deed.— In the absence of evidence to the contrary the deed itself af- fords a presumption that the grantor had sufficient seisin for the purposes of the conveyance, and operates to vest the legal seisin in the grantee. Ward V. FuUer, 32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 185. s Definition of disseisin — lord Mans- field has observed justly that " the precise definition of what constituted a disseisin, which made the disseisor the tenant to the demandant's praecipe, though the right owner's entry was not taken away, was once well known, but it is not now to be found. The more we read, imless we are very care- 14 ful to distinguish, the more we shaU be confounded ; for after the assize of novel disseisin wa:^ introduced, the Legislature by many acts of Parliament, and the courts of law, by Uberal constructions, in furtherance of justice, extended this remedy, for the sake of the owner, to every trespass or injury done to his real property, if by bring- ing his assize he thought fit to admit himself disseised." Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 110. •• Towle V. Ayer, 8 N. H. 57, 60 ; People V. Van Rensselaer, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 180, 189, 194 ; s.c. 9 N. Y 291 ■ Smith V. Burtis, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 197 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 218 ; Jackson v. Rogers, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 33 ; Clarke i;. McClure, lOGratt. (Va.) 305; Ewing's Lessee v. Burnet, 86 U. S. (11 Pet.) 41 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 624 ; Williajn v. Thomas. 12 East 141. 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 181a, 257a. * Possession of disseisor must be open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse to the title of the ownei'. Taylor r. Horde, 1 Burr. 110. 210 KINDS OF DISSEISI^'. [Book m. the owner, which is termed a disseisin, iri fact ; and second,, a disseisia by the election of the owner, which is termed a disseisin by construction of law. The effect of the first is to give the disseisor an absolute title in fee, against all the world, if he is suffered to remain in undisturbed pos- session of the land until the statute of limitations has run. The latter disseisin is created by acts without actual entrance, and in this is equivocal and not neces- sarily amounting to an entire immediate ouster of the freehold, but which the owner may, if he pleases, treat as usurpation of his freehold, for the sake of vindicating his title by an action at law. Such as where a tenant for life or years makes a feoffment ; ^ or where a tenant at will makes a lease for years ; ^ or where a stranger makes a lease and the lessee enters under it without reference.^ In this and like cases the entry is equivocal, and may be either trespass or a disseisin, according to the intent. The law wUl not permit the wrongdoer to classify his own wrong and explain it to be a mere tres- pass unless the owner likes to so consider it.* To con- stitute a disseisin of the first class the act must be an unequivocal act of ownership, open, avowed, exclusive, adverse, and uninterrupted,^ and can be made only by actually and forcibly turning the owner out of posses- sion ; ® or by entering under a conveyance from one ' Miller v. Shackleford, 3 Dana Little v. Libby, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.) (Ky.) 389 ; 213 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 68 ; Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 60. , Johnson v. Bean, 119 Mass. 271 : - See : Blunden v. Baugh, Cro. Car. Slater v. Jepherson, 60 Mass. (6 302. Cush.) 129 ; ' Jerritt v. Weare, 3 Price 575. Cobum v. Hollas, 44 Mass. (3 * Prescott V. Nevers, 4 Mas. C. C. Met.) 125 ; 326-329. Lane v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) See : Rogei-s v. Joyce, 4 Me. (4 2.54 ; Greenl.) 93 ; Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 John. Robison v. Swett, 3 Me. (3 (N. Y.) 230 ; Greenl.) 316 ; Calhoun v. Cook, 9 Pa. St. 236 ; Allen V. Holten, 87 Mass. (20 Pick.) Clarke v. McClure, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 458,467; 305; "White V. Eeid, 2 Nott. & Mc. (S. Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr, 110. C.) 534 ; 6 Wiggins v. Holley, 11 Ind. 3 ; Ricard v. Williams, 20 U. S. (7 Magee v. Magee, 37 Miss. 152 ; Wheat.) 60 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 898. Grant v. Fowler, 39 N. H. 101 ; » French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439, McGregor v. Comstock, 17 N. Y. 440 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 680 ; 172. Jones V. Chiles, 2 Dana (Ky.) SmithuBurtis, 6 John.(N.Y.)197; 25 ; See : Varick v. Jackson, 2 Wend. Winthrop v. Benson, 31 Me. 381 ; (N. Y.) 166; s.c.l9 Am.Dec.571. Chap, I. § 237.] WHAT CONSTITUTES DISSEISIN. 211 who has no title ; ^ or by entry under claim or color of title, ^ or under parol agreement;^ by occupying and cultivating the land under the claim of title/ without it be not a rightful title/ such as a defective levy/ or by merely a claim of the exclusive right to the possession.^ Sec. 237. Same— Same— What constitutes a disseisin. — To constitute a disseisin the entry must be adverse to the title of the true owner, utterly inconsistent therewith, together with an express and tacit denial of it ; ^ and must consist of an occupancy of the lands in good faith and under the belief that the claimant has a good title.^ The intention to claim in opposition to the title of another must be clear, ^^ otherwise it will be presumed to be in submission ' Jackson ex. d. Bradsiireet v. Huntington, 30 U. S. (5 Pet.) 402 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 170. * Herbert v. Hanrick, 16 Ala. 581 ; Aberorombie v. Baldwin, 15 Ala. 363. See : Comins v. Comins, 21 Conn. 413; House V. Palmer, 9 Ga. 497 ; Melvin v. Proprietor of Locks, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 15 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 384; Hoag V. Wallace, 28 N. H. (8 Post.) 547 ; Thomas' Adm'r v. Kelly, 13 Ired. (N. C.) L. 269 ; Clarke v. McClure, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 305; Whitney v. French, 25 Vt. 663 ; Ewing's Lessee v. IJurnet, 36 U. S. (11 Pet.) 41; bk. 9 L.ed.624. « Pope V. Henry, 24 Vt. 560. * Robinson v. Douglass, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 364. "Warren v. ChUds, 11 Mass. 222, 225 * Wendell v. Moulton, 26 N. H. (6 Post.) 41 ; Jackson v. Newton, 18 John. (N. Y.) 355 ; Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 633. « Bigelow V. Jones, 27 Mass. (10 Pick.) 161 ; Allen V. Thayer, 17 Mass. 299. 'AUyn V. Mather, 9 Conn. 114; Towle V. Ayer, 8 N. H. 60. 'French v. Pearoe, 8 Conn. 439, 440; Little V. Libby, 2 Me. (3 Greenl.) 242. See : Armstrong v. Eisteau, 5 Md. 256; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 115 : Hoye V. Swan, 5 Md. 237 ; Small V. Proctor, 15 Mass. 495 ; Takeway v. Barrett, 38 Vt. 310 : Clarke v. McClure, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 11. ° Woodward v. McReynolds, 1 Chand. (Wis.) 244. '•" Wiggins V. Holley, 11 Ind. 2 ; Magee v. Magee, 37 Miss. 153 ; Grant v. Fowler, 39 N. H. 101 ; McGregor v. Comstock, 17 N. Y. 173- Smith V. Burtis, 6 John. (N. Y.) 197. See : Varick v. Jackson, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 166 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 571. Occupancy ty mistake and througli misapprehension. — Whether an occupancy by mistake, and through misapprehension of the dividing line, amounts to a disseisin, is a point the court are not perfectly agreed upon. Same. — In Blaine and in Tennessee it has been held no disseisin. Lincoln v. Edgeeomb, 31 Me. 345 ; Ross V. Gould, 5 Me. (5 Greenl.) 204; Brown v. Gay, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.) 126; Gates V. Butler, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 447. Same. — In Connecticut and in Penn- sylvania it is held otherwise. French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439, 440, 445, 446 ; Jones V. Porter, 3 Pa. St. 133. 212 ABATEMENT. [Book IIL to the title of the true owner. ^ The question of intent of the party, in taking and holding possession, is one of fact for the jury,^ and may under some circumstances be imputed to those who by a general rule of law are in ordinary cases incapable of willing, or are not bound by an exercise of the will.^ Sec. 238. Abatement— Effect of.— The seisin in law which an heir acquires on the death of his ancestor may be divided by the entry of a stranger, claiming a right to the land, which entry is called an abatement ; and in See:Takeway v. Barrett, 38 Vt. 816. This is on the ground that, in order to be an adverse posses- sion, it is sufficient that the party intended to claim the land as exclusively and abso- lutely his own estate, and actu- ally and visibly occupied it as such, receiving the profits to his own use, without any sup- posed or assumed accounta- iDility ; and that this may well be the case without any knowl- edge or suspicion of any other title or claim. See : Melvin v. Proprietors of Locks, etc., 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 15, 31, 33 ; s,c. 38 Am. Dec. 384; Parker v. Proprietors of Looks, etc., 44 Mass. (3 Met.) 91, 100, 101 ; s.c. 37 Am. Deo. 121 ; Hale V. GUdden, 10 N. H. 397. Same — Conveying larger tract than owner. — In Maine, if the grant- or, by mistake, conveys a larger tract than he owns, and the grantee enters and actually occupies according to his deed, it is held that the grantee there- by disseises the true owner , though the rule that occupa- tion by mistake is no disseisin is in such case applicable to the grantor. Otis K. Moulton, 31 Me. (3 Applet.) 205. Same — ^Wheu disseisin. — But to constitute a disseisin by the grantee, in such case of occu- pancy by mistake, the occu- pancy must be actual and vis- ible ; for his entry will not be extended by mere construction beyond the limits of his title. Hale V. Glidden, 10 N. H. 397 ; Enfield v. Day, 7 N. H. 457, 467. ' Pierson v. Turner, 2 Ind. 123 ; Gwynn v. Jones, 2 Gill. & (Md.) 173 ; Lund V. Parker, 3 N. H. 49 ; Lane v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 254; Jackson v. Sharp, 9 John. (N. Y.) 163 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 267 ; Smith V. Burtis, 6 John. (N. Y.) 197 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 218. = Herbert v. Henrick, 16 Ala. 581 ; Beverly ■;;. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ; s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 351 ; Dennett v. Crocker, 8 Me. (8 Greenl.) 239 ; Atherton v. Johnson, 3 N. H. 31 ; Jackson v. Joy, 9 John. (N. Y.) 103; Woodward v. McReynolds, 1 Chand. (Wis.) 244. Declarations made ty the party taking possession, oven though made to a stranger, are admis- sible in evidence in disparage- ment of his claim, but not in his favor. Crane v. Marshall, 16 Me. (4 Shep.) 37; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 631; Alden v. Gilmore, 13 Me. (1 Shep.) 178 ; Little V. Libby, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.) 242; Church V. Burghardt, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 327 ; Carter v. Gregory, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 168 ; West Cambridge v. Lexington, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) 536. ^ Jackson ex d. Bradstreet v. Hrmt- ington, 30 U. S. (5 Pet.) 402 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 170. Chap. I. § 239.] ABEYANCE OF FREEHOLDER. 213 such a case the only mode of regaining tlie seisin is by an entry of the legal owner, which will restore him to the legal possession.^ If the abator die seized the lands will descend to his heir.'-' At common law where the younger brother entered upon the death of his ancestor, such entry was not an abatement ; for it should be intended that the younger brother did not set up a new title, but only entered to preserve the possession of the ancestor in the family, that no one else should abate. And if the younger son die in possession, still the elder son might enter ; for the law would not intend the entry of the younger son to be a wrongful act, therefore his possession became that of the elder. ^ Sec. 239. Abeyance of freeholder.— In those cases where there is no person in esse in whom the freehold is vested, it is said to be in abeyance ; that is, to exist only in ex- pectation, remembrance, and contem])lation of law ; * in other words, is under the care and protection of the law.^ Abeyances are of two kinds : first, of the fee-simple, as where there is an actual estate of freehold in esse, but the right to the fee-simple is suspended until the happen- ing of a designated event ; ^ and, second, of the freehold estate. The latter species of abeyance occurs on the death of an incumbent and lasts until the appointment of his successor, at which event the estate revives.'' There is also an abeyance of the freeholder where it is sought to ' In most if not in all of the states either in expressed terms or by of the Union, it has been pro- broad and general language, Yided by statute that no seisin give to the heir, and by de- shall take away the riglit of scent, the ancestor's right to entry. real property witlaout regard See: Stinson's Stat. L., vol. I., to the que.stion whether or not passim. he die actually seized. « See : 1 Co. Inst. 377a ; See : Chirac v. Reinecker, 37 U. Litt., S 385 ; 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) S. (3 Pet.) 613, 625 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 337a"; 538, 543 ; ' Gill. Tenn. 38. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 338, 389. Litt., § 396. " And. L. Diet. 6 ; The doctrine of the possession in 1 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 74 ; fratris, in the law of descents, 2.B1. Com. 107, 216, 318 ; is generally abrogated in the 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 342b. United States, possibly with ' In gremlo legis, say the court in the exception of Maryland and Carter v. Barnardiston, 1 Pr. North Carolina, and perhaps Wms. 516. others, by the statutes of de- « 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 343b. scents and distributions, which, ' 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 343b. 214 WHO MAY BE FREEHOLDERS. [BOOK III. make it commence to pass in futuro ; ^ but this does not apply to estates in remainder or reversion, which are es- tates in expectancy.^ It is a maxim of the common law that a fee cannot be in abeyance. The reasons for this rule are found in the feudal system, and were for the pur- poses of enabling the superior lord to know upon whom to call for the military services that were due for the feud ; and also to enable strangers who claimed the right to any particular lands to know against whom they should bring their _prcec-ipe for the recovery of them, such actions not being maintainable against any other than the actual freeholder.^ The reasons upon which this rule rests no longer exist, and the rule itself is not of universal application.* Sec. 240. Who may be freeholders.— At common law all natural persons born within the dominion of the crown of England were capable of holding freehold estates ; unless they were attainted of treason or felony, or had incurred the penalty of the prc&munire, for in these cases they were considered as civilly dead, and for that reason incapable of possessing any real property.^ In this country there is no exception to the right to hold real estate except that arising from alienage in some states.'' At common law even an alien may take an estate by the act of the parties, as by purchase or devise,'^ and hold the ' 1 Prest. Est. 220. Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St. ^ 1 Atk. Con. 11. 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474 ; Conveyance of freehold in reversion.— Harmon v. James, 7 Smed. & M. It has been said that wliere one (Miss.) Ill; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. who holds a freehold in revex-- 296 ; sion conveys it in terms from Parker v. Stuckert, 3 Miles (Pa.) the expiration of the intermedi- 278. ate estate, courts will construe ^ See : Apthorp v. Backus, 1 Kirby it a present conveyance and of (Conn.) 407 : s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 26 ; thepvesent freehold, the enjoy- Fox v. Southack, 12 Mass. ment of which will be post- 143 : ]-)oned until the expiration of Montgomery v. Dorion, 7 N. H. tlie intermediate or prior estate. 475, 480. Wealde v. Lower, Pollex 60 ; ' See : Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 1 Prest. Est. 325. 13 N. Y. 37G : 2 1 Co. Inst. 342b. Doe ex d. Gouverneur's Heirs v. ■• Wallach v. Van Biswick, 92 U. Robertson, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat ) S. 303, 313 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 473, 333 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 488 ; ^'I'T. Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's ^ See : Bancroft u. Consen, 95 Mass. Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 603 619 ; (13 Allen) 50 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 453, 458 ; Huss V. Stephens, 51 Pa. St. 282 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 2. Chap. J. § 240.] TENURE OF ALIEN-HOLDER. 215 same against all the world except the state ; ^ nor can he be divested of his estate in the land by the state, until after a formal proceeding on information filed for that purpose ; ^ and until this is done he may take, hold, sell, and convey, — and some courts even go so far as to hold that he may devise, — the land he has possession of and pass a good title thereto ; ^ but the general rule is that upon Alien cannot take by law. — Black- stone says, that though an alien may take real estate by purchase, yet he cannot by descent, by dower, or by the curtesy, which are the acts of the law (2 Bl. Com. 249), for the law giveth the alien noth- ing. Though an alien may pur- chase land or take it by devise, yet he is exposed to the danger of being divested of the fee and of having the land forfeited to the state upon an inquest of ofiBce found. 2 Kent. Com. (13th ed). 53. ' Goodrich v. Russel, 42 N. Y. 87G ; Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 12 N. Y. 376. See : Fox v. Southaok, 12 Mass. 143; Doe ex d. Gouverneur's Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat.) 332 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 488 ; Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 603, 619 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 453, 458. = Nonis V. Hoyt, 18 Cal. 217 ; People V. Folsom, 4 Cal. 373 ; Halstead v. Board of Commis- sioners of Lake, 56 Ind. 363 ; Elmondorff v. Carmichael, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 472 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 86 ; Goodrich v. Russel, 42 N.Y. 177 : Heeney v. Brooklyn Society, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 360 ; Jackson v. Adams, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 367. " Office fonud " is the technical name of the formal proceedings re- ferred to. Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 360, 365 ; State V. Boston, C. & M. R. Co., 25 Vt. 433 ; Cross V. De Valle, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 5 ; s.c. bk. 17 L. ed. 515; 3 Bl. Com. 258. Alien can hold until "office found." — It is said by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Gouverneur's Heirs v. Robert- son,24U. S. (11 Wheat.) 322,356; bk. 6 L. ed. 488, "that an alien can take by deed and can hold until office found must be re- garded as a positive rule of law, so well established that the reason of the rule is little more than a subject for the anti- quary. It no doubt owes its present authority, if not its origin, to regard to the peace of society and a desire to pro- tect the individual from arbi- trary aggression." Kon-resident aliens holding land — State regulation. — The ques- tion as. to the rights of anon- resident alien to hold property,, both at common law and under the civil law, is a matter be^ tweenthe alien and the govern- ment, and cannot be called in question in a collateral proceed- ing between individuals. Racouillat i\ Sansevain, 32 Cal.. 376. Common-law disahilities. attached, to alienage in respect to> acquir- ing, holding, and inheriting lands have been removed by statute to a great extent in the' various states. See : Post, § ' See : Ramires v. Kent, 2 Cal. 558,. 560: Murray v. KeUy, 27 Ind. 42 ; State V. Beackmo, 8 Blackf . (Ind.)' 246; Greenhold v. Stanforth, 21 Iowa 595; Purczell V. Smidt, 21 Iowa 540 ; McCreery v. AUender, 4 Harr. & McH. (Md.) 409, 412 ; Soanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass. (13. Pick.) 523, 529 ; s.c. 25 Am. Dec. 344 ; Fox V. Southack, 12 Mass. 143 ; Sheafe v. O'Neil, 1 Mass. 256 ; • Montgomery v. Doxion, 7 N. H.. 475, 480. 210 ALIENS' RIGHTS TO HOLD LANDS. [Book HI. the death, of an alien in possession of real property, although he may leave heirs who -would be capable of taking it if he were a citizen, the land escheats.-^ This was according to the common-law rule preventing aliens from taking real estate by descent, or by operation of law in any respect.^ Sec. 241. Same— Aliens.— At common law all persons born in a strange country, under obedience to a strange prince, and out of the lineage of the king, were incapable of taking or holding freehold estate for their own benefit, unless they were naturalized by act of Parliament or made citizens by letters patent.^ In this country an alien cannot take lands by act of law or by descent, nor transmit them to others as his heirs, by the common law,* ' Slater V. Nason, 33 Mass. (15 Pick.) 345, 349 ; Maynard v. Maynard, 36 Hun (N. Y.) 227, 230 ; Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 360, 365 ; Rubeck v. Gardner, 7 Watts (Pa.) 455, 458. ' Montgomery v. Doxion, 7 N. H. 475, 480 ; People V. ConkUn, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 67, 69 ; Moaers v. Wliite, 6 John. Ch. (N. Y.)360, 365; Marshall v. Conrad, 5 Call. (Va.) 364, 403 ; Blight's Lessee v. Rochester, 20 U. S. (7 Wheat.) 535, 544 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 516 : Orr V. Hodgson, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 453 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 613 ; Dawson v. Godfrey. 8 U. S. (4 Cr.) 321, 322; bk. 2 L. ed. 634. Compare: Rhien v. Robbins, 20 Iowa. 45. ' State V. Beackmo, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 246; 1 Inst. 2b. * Siemssen v. Bofer, 6 Cal. 250 ; Huddleston v. Lazenby, 1 Ind. 334; Doe V. Lazenby, 1 Smitli (Ind.) 203, 234 ; Greenhold v. Stanforth, 21 Iowa 595; PurczeU v. Smidt, 21 Iowa 540 ; Bhien ■;;. Bobbins, 20 Iowa 45 ; Stemple v. Herminghouser, 3 Iowa 408 ; Yeaker's Heirs v. Yeaker's Heirs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 83 ; s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 530; White V. White, 2 Met. (Ky.) 185; Farrar v. Dean, 24 Mo. 16 ; Marx V. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 358 ; Heeney v. Brooklyn Society, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 360 ; Beck V. McGillis, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 35; Brown v. Sprague, 5 Den. (N. Y.) Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 360, 365 ; Jackson v. Lunn, 3 John. Cas. (N. Y.) 109 ; Copeland v. Sauls, 1 Jones (N. C.) L. 70 ; Settegast r. Schrimpf, 35 Tex. 323; Heirs of Clay v. Clay, 26 Tex. 24, 84; Hardy v. DeLeon, 5 Tex. 211 ; State V. Boston, C. M. R. Co., 25 Vt. 433 ; Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 U. S. 334 ; bk. 26 L. ed. 1124 ; Orr V. Hodgson, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 453 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 013 ; Cross V. DeValle, 1 Cliff. C. C. 282; Hammekin v. Clayton, 2 Woods C. C. 336. Foreigners can hold property in the territories, and may in- lierit, in the absence of legisla- tion upon this subject. People V. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373. Chap, I. § 241.] ALIENS AND NATURALIZATION. 2ir for lie has no inheritable blood ; ^ but a great change has taken place in recent years, both in England ^ and See : Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. (3 Wall.) 478 ; bk. "iSL. ed.88. The law existing at the time of descent cast governs the right of aliens to inherit realty. Pilla V. German School Assoc, 23 Fed. Eep. 700 ; Snlisequent naturalization does not avail. — Where at the death of one seized his heirs are aliens, incapable of taking, the title vests elsewhere, and is not transferred to them by their subsequent naturalization. Heejiey v. Brooklyn Society, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 360. Who are aliens — Indiana doctrine. — It is said in Indiana that the term ' ' alien "applies to one not a citizen of the state. McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 330. Same — Texas mle. — A different rule, however, would seem to prevail in Texas, for it is said there, that upon the annexa- tion of Texas to the Union, a citizen of another state ceased to be an alien ; and that a con- veyance made to him while an alien then became indefeasible. Baker v. Westcot, 73 Tex. 123 ; S.C. 11 8. W. 157. Foreign bom child of a citizen of the United States, it seems, is subject to a double allegi- ance, but that on reaching maturity he has the right to elect one and repudiate the other, and that such election is conclusive upon him. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 20 N. Y. 356. Thus where a citizen of the United States, voluntarily, at the age of eighteen years, went to Peru, with the intention of remaining there in trade an in- definite time, but was not nat- uralized there ; it was held, that by the common law, in the absence of any law of the United States on the subject, his child born in Peru, of a wife a native of that countiy, was capable of inheriting property as a citizen of the United States. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356. A resident alien, widow of a naturalized cltiaen of South Carolina, who died intestate, leaving a brother who was also a naturalized citizen, is en- titled to no share of her hus- band's real estate ; the brother being the sole distributee. Keenan v. Keenan, 7 Rich. (S. C.) L. 345.- Same^Snbsequent naturalization. — And that though the widow subsequently becomes natural- ized, her naturalization does not retroact, so as to divestr the brother, and vest a share of the land in her. Keenan v. Keenan, 7 Rich. (S. C.) L. 345. Curtesy. — A foreigner, not natural- ized, cannot hold, by curtesy, such an interest in land as may be sold by a,fi. fa. Copeland v. Sauls, 1 Jones (N. C.) L. 70. Alien children and widow — Hold- ing by devise. — In New York, aliens, and the children of aliens, have been said to be incapable of taking and hold- ing real estate by devise ; but a female, married to an alien, and residing in a foreign coun- try, is not thereby incapaci- tated to take an interest in real estate under a will. Beck V. McGilHs, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 35. ' Elmondorff v. Carmichael, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 472; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 86; Monroe v. Merchant, 38 N. Y. 915 * McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263, 374; McGregor v. Comstock, 3 N. Y. 408, 414 ; Moaers v. Wliite, 6 John. Oh. (N. Y.) 360, 365 ; Orser v. Hoag, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 79 ; People V. ConkUn, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 71; Redpath v. Rich, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 79, 81 ;. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 583 ; Jackson v. Fitzsimmons, 10 2 The naturalization act of 83 Vict., c. 14, § 3. 218 FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES. [Book in. America, in the direction of obliterating all distinction between citizens and aliens in the ownership of property. In the various territories ^ and in the District of Columbia,^ foreigners can hold property, and may inherit, in the absence of legislation upon the subject.^ Where there aire statutes existing at the time of the descent cast, these statutes govern the right of aliens to inherit realty.* Sec. 242. Same— Same— Federal and state statutes. — Con- gress has exercised the power conferred by the federal constitution and established a uniform rule of naturaliza- tion which prevails throughout all the states and terri- tories, yet each state has the undoubted right to enact laws regulating the descent of, and successions to, prop- erty within its limits, and consequently to permit or prevent aliens from holding or inheriting lands.^ Such statutes have been passed in Alabama,^ Arkansas,' Wend. (N. Y.) 9 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 198 ; Orr V. Hodgson, 17 V. S. (4 Wheat.) 453 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 613. Alien bensflciaries of trust. — V/herever the common-law doctrine prevails forbidding aliens from acquiring real estate for an absolute right, they can be made beneficiaries and hold equitable interest in a trust in their favor ; but this does not extend to trusts in personal property. See : Atkins v. Kron, 5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 207 ; Leggett V. Dubois, 5 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 114 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 413; Hubbard v. Goodwin, 8 Leigh (Va.) 492 ; Taylor v. Benham, 46 U. S. (5 How.) 233 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 130. Same — Bequest converted into money. — Consequently a be- quest of land to an alien con- verted into money by sale is valid, although a demise of the land is void. See : De Barante v. Gott, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 497 ; Anstice v. Browne, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 44-8 ; Craig i;. Leslie, 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 563 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 460. Same — Secret trust voidable. — Where by the laws of a state aliens are prohibited from ac- quiring and holding real prop- erty, a deed made by A to B upon a secret trust for C, who is a foreigner, A having no knowledge of the trust, is not void ; the trust only is void. Hammekin v. Clayton, 2 Woods C C 336 ' People \;. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373.' See: Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. (3 WaU.) 478 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 88. •^ See : De Geofroy v. Riggs, 138 U. 8. 258 ; bk. 33 L. ed. 642 ; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359 ; 17 Wash. L. Rep. 438. " People V. Folsom, 5 Cal. 873. '' Pilla V. German School Assoc. , 33 Fed. Rep. 700. ' Ethridge iJ.Malempre, 18Ala. 565. « Ala. Code, 1886, § 1914. See: Harley v. State, 40 Ala. 689; Ethridge v. Malempre, 18 Ala. 565; Cong. Church v. Morris, 8 Ala. 103. Defaasible estate of an alien. — In Alabama, under the present statute, the defeasible estate of an alien, inlands purchased by him, is perfected % his becom- ing a naturalized citizen before office found. ' Ark. Dig. 1884, § 232, et seq. Chap. I. § 242.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. 219 California,^ Colorado,^ Connecticut,^ Florida,* Geor- gia, ^ Illinois,^ Indiana,'^ Iowa,* Kansas,^ Kentucky,^" Harley v. State, 40 Ala. 689. But the statute of AlabaBia, giv- ing an alien woman the right to inherit from her uncle, also an alien, in the same manner as if he, her mother, and lierself were citizens, does not give the capacity of inheritance to other relatives, who are also aliens. Congregational Church v. Morris, 8 Ala. 182. 1 Cal. Civ. Code, §§671, 672. Under this statute property must be claimed within five years or it escheats See : State v. Smith, 70 Cal. 153 ; s.c. 12 Pac. Eep. 121. California. Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from conferring upon non-resident foreigners the same rights witli respect to the acquisition, pos- session, enjoyment, transmis- sion, and inheritance of prop- erty, as are guaranteed by that instrument to resident foreign- ers. State V. Smith, 70 Cal. 153; s.c. 12 Pac. Rep. 121. California Constitution, art. 1, § 17, providing that "bona fide residents of this state shall have the same rights in respect to the acquisition, possession, enjoyment, transmission, and inheritance of property as na- tive-born citizens," has been held not to prevent extending the right of inheritance to non- resident aliens. Re BiUings, 65 Cal. 593 ; s.c. 4 Pac. Rep. 639. California CivU Code, § 671, for the succession to property by foreigners who have never been residents, provides a rule with respect to property within the state, and confers a right to be enjoyed within its jurisdiction is constitutional ; and under § 672, property claimed by suc- cession escheats if the alien does not appear within the state and claim it within five years. State V. Smith, 70 Cal. 153; s.c. 12 Pac. 121. "Non-resident aliens," as used in Cal. Civ. Code, § 672, requiring a claim to property by succes- sion to be made within five years, mean those persons who are neither citizens of the Unit- ed States nor residents of the state. State V. Smith, 70 Cal. 153; s.c. 13 Pac. Rep. 121. 2 Col. Gen. St. 1883, p. 132, § 61. 8 Conn. Gen. St. 1888, § 15. The IVench citizens — Land for min- ing purposes. — An exception is made in favor of French citizens, who are classed as resident aliens. Non-resident aliens are permitted to acquire, hold, and transmit real estate used for mining purposes. *Fla. Dig. 1881, p. 470, §7. 5 Ga. Code, 1882, § 1661. Alien friends. — It is provided in this statute that alien friends "shall have the privilege of purchasing, holding, and con- veying real estate." « Starr & Cur. Ann. St. 1885, p. 264, c. VL.pars. 1 & 2. ' Ind. Rev. St. 1881. § 2967. See : Murray v. Kelley, 27 Ind. 42. 8 Iowa Rev. Code, 1886, § 1908. See : Be Gill's Estate, 79 la. 296 ; s. c. 44 N. W. Rep. 553; 9 L. R. A. ; Krogan v. Kinney, 15 Iowa 242. Non-resident aliens — Iowa doctrine. — Under the statutes of Iowa, a non-resident alien can in- herit real estate only when devised to him by will, and provided he will become a resi- dent of the state subsequent to the date of such devise. Krogan v. Kinney, 15 Iowa 242. A "non-resident alien" wliose widow under Iowa Code, § 2442, "shall be entitled to the same rights in the property of her husband as a resident, except as against a purchaser," means one who resides ' outside the state. iJeGiU's Estate, 79 Iowa 296; s.c. 44 N. W. Rep. 553; 9 L. R. A. ' Kan. Const. 1859, Bill of Rights, § 17; Kans. Comp. L. 1885, p. 50, t^ 99. '« Ky. Gen. St. 1883, p. 191, § 1. By this statute aUens can inher- 220 STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. [BOOK IH. Maine, ^ Maryland,^ Massachusetts,^ Michigan,* Min- nesota,^ Mississippi,® Missouri,^ Montana,^ Nebraska,^ it after declaring their inten- tiQp to become citizens of the United States. See: Eustache v. Eodaquest, 11 Bush (Ky.) 42; White V. White, 3 Met. (Ky.) 185. Kentucky statutes — Act of 1800. — An alien, to inherit land under the act of 1800, must have had two years' residence in the state, and have resided here at the time of decedent's death. White V. White, 3 Met. (Ky.) 185. Same— Act of March 31, 1861, " to allovf non-resident aliens who are heirs and devisees to hold and convey real estate," does not repeal nor is it in conflict with Rev. Stat., ch. 15, art. 3, § 1, but is merely cumulative. Nor is that act repealed, either in terms or effect, by that of March 9, 1867. Eustache v. Rodaquest, 11 Bush (Ky.) 43.' Where an alien becomes a citizen of Kentucky and dies intestate and childless, his sister, an alien and resident of France, may take by descent his real estate under the limitations prescribed in the act of March 21, 1861, subject to the widow's right to a homestead exemption or dower. Eustache v. Eodaquest, 11 Bush (Ky.) 43. Alienage of wife. — By the law prior to the adoption of the Re- vised Statutes, the alienage of the wife rendered her incapable of inheriting from her husband, and also barired her right of dower. White V. White, 3 Met. (Ky.) 185. ' Me. Rev. St. 1883, p. 604, § 3. ^Md. Rev. Code, 1878, p. 393, 8 8 3 Mass." Pub. St. 1883, p. 744, §1- ■•Mich. Const. 1850, art. XVIII., 8 13. Bights and disabilities of aliens in MicMgan to acquire and hold lands in Michigan, under the ordinance of 1787, the treaty with Great Britain of 1794, and the acts of Congress and of Michigan ; also the doctrine of escheats, — explained. Crane v. Reeder, 21 Mich. 24 ; s.c. 4 Am. Rep. 430. 5 Minn. Gen. St. 1878, p. 820, §41. " Miss. Rev. Code, 1880, § 1330. ' Mo. Rev. St. 1879, § 325. See : Harney v. Donohoe, 97 Mo. 141; s.c. 10 S. W. Rep. 191 ; Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 504 ; State V. Killian, 51 Mo. 80 ; Greenia v. Greenia, 14 Mo. 536. The Missouri statutes remove all disabilities of alienage. An alien, therefore, may take land by descent from an ahen. Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 504. Under Missouri statutes, 1835, p. 66 (Rev. Stat. 1845, p. 113), where the heirs to real estate consisted of aliens, one of them a resident, and the others non- residents, of the United States, the resident alien was the sole heir, and those who were non- residents took no interest what- ever. Harney v. Donohoe, 97 Mo. 141 ; s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 191. Capacity to hold lands. — If a gen- eral statute of the state allows an alien to hold lands upon certain conditions, as that he shall declare his intention of becoming a citizen, a petition to enforce an escheat must show affirmatively that the condi- tions did not exist. The pre- sumption is, that when lie ac- quired the land, he was quali- fied to hold it. State V. Killian, 51 Mo. 80. * The organic act of Montana Ter- ritory, of May 36, 1864, does not sanction the principle of the common law, which prohibits aliens from holding real prop- erty. Aliens who have declar- ed their intentions to become citizens can hold lands in the territory. Territory v. Lee, 3 Mont. 134. » Neb. Comp. L. 1885, c. 73, § 54. Chap. I. § 242.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. 221 Nevada,! New Hampshire,^ New Jersey,^ New York/ ' Nev. L. 1879, p. 51 ; Nev. Gen. St. 1885, § 2655. Chinese excepted. — An exception is made in this statute a-gainst subjects of the Chinese Em- pire. See : State v. Preble, 18 Nev. 351 ; s.c. 2Pao. Rep. 754; Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable Con. Co., 12 Nev. 312. Hevada Constitution gives to for- eigners becoming bona fide residents the rights of citizens as to property, etc. Under this provision a subject of the Chinese Empire, if a bona fide resident, may locate and pur- chase public lands of the state. State V. Preble, 18 Nev. 251. Same — Locating mining claim. — An alien who has never de- clared his intention to become a citizen is not a qualified locator of mining ground, and he cannot hold a mining claim, either by actual possession or by location, against one who connects himself with the gov- ernment title by compliance with the mining law. Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable, etc. , Co., 12 Nev. 312. «N. H. Gen. L. 1878, p. 325, § 16. 3 N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 6, § 3. See : Colgan v. PeUens, 48 N. J. L. (19 Vr.) 27 : s.c. 2 Atl. Rep. 633 ; 2 Cent. Rep. 254. < 4 N. Y. Rev. St. (8th ed.) 3420, 2425 ; 1 Rev. St. Codes 6 L. 861; 3 Id. 2516, 2525, • 3342. See : HaU v. HaU, 81 N. Y. 130; Luhrsu. Eimer, 80 N. Y. 171 ; Goodrich v. Russel, 42 N. Y. 376; People V. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397; Van Cortland v. Laidley, 32 N. Y S R 585 * Re Beck's Estate, 31 N. Y. S. R. 965; Wright V. Saddler, 20 N. Y. 330; Duke of Cumberland v.- Graves, 7 N. Y. 305 ; s.c. 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 595 ; McCarthy v. March, 5 N. Y. 3S3; Ettenheimer v. Hefferman, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 374 ; Heenev v. Brooklyn Society, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 360 ; Watson V. Donnelly, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 653 ; Parish v. Ward, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 328; Brown v. Sprague, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 545; Currin v.' Finn, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 229 • Matter of Leefe, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 395 ; Halsey v. Beer, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 24 N. Y. S. Rep. 713 ; 5 N. Y. Supp. 334 ; KuU V. Kuli, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 476; Dusenberry v. Dawson, 9 Hun (N. Y.) 511 ; McCarty v. Terry, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 233. Ifew York statute— Act, 1825. — Subsequently to the statute of 1825, in New York, alienscould not take land by purchase, without complying with the provisions of that act. CuiTin V. Finn, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 229. Same — Children of resident alien —Act, 1845.— By New York Laws of 1845, c. 115, §g 1, 10, the children of a resident aUen inherit his land at his death, although themselves non-resi- dent aliens. The title of such of them as are males of fuU age is defeasible by the state unless, before the consummation of proceedings instituted for that purpose, they file declai'ations with the secretary of state of their intention to become citi- Goodri'ch v. Russel, 43 N. Y. 376. Same — Revised Statutes. — Under the Revised Statutes of New York an alien can take land by purcliase, and in case of lands which under those statutes would escheat to the state, the attorney-general alone can take' advantage of it. Matter of Leefe, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 395. Same — Devisee horn after death of alien. — It is said by the Supreme Court in the recent 222 STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. [Book III. North Carolina,^ Ohio,^ Oregon,^ Pennsylvania/ Ehode case of Van Cortland v. Laid- tenev estate were held valid case of Van Cortland v. Laid- ley, 32 N. Y. S. R. 585, that the disability created by 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat. 57, § 4, providing that every devise of any inter- est in realty to one who is an alien at the time of testator's death shall be void, and the in- terest so devised shall pass to the heirs or residuary estate, does not apply to alien devisees born after the death of the tes- tator ; and such devisees to whom was devised the remain- der of lands devised for hf e can take under such devise and hold as against the heirs at law, independent of the provis- ions of the statute. Same — An alien womsn, who might be lawfnlly naturalized under the existing laws, by inter- marrying with a naturalized non-resident citizen of the United States, acquires a right to take real estate by de- Halsey v. Beer, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 34N. Y. S. R. 713 ; 5N. Y. Supp. 334. Treaties — With Great Britain, 1783. — Although, under the 6th article of the treaty of 1783, lands held by British subjects in New York might be trans- mitted by descent to a citizen, tliey could not, upon the death of such British subjects, previous to the treaty of 1794, pass by descent to an ahen born after July 4, 1776. Brown v. Sprague, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 545. Same— Treaty of 1794.— A British subject holding lands within the United States, and coming within the provisions of the ninth article of the treaty with Great Britain of 1794, authorizing him to ' 'grant, sell, and devise lands to whom he pleased, in like manner as if he had been a native-bom citizen of the United States," had a right to convey and de- vise lands to aliens as well as citizens. Watson V. Donnelly, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 653. The titles derived from convey- ance by the trustees of the Pul- teney estate were held valid under the provisions of this treaty with Great Britain and the New York act of 1798, as to the capacity of British aliens to hold and convey lands in the United States. People V. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397. Same— With Prussia, 1844. —Un- der the treaty of March 38, 1844, article 3, between the United States and Prussia, providing that, on the death of any person holding real prop- erty in one of such countries, a subject or citizen of the other to whom the property would 'descend were he not disquali- fied by alienage shall be al- lowed a reasonable time to sell the same and to withdraw the proceeds, upon a foreclosure sale of a decedent's lands from which a surplus is realized. Citizens of Germany who are the heirs and next of kin are entitled to withdraw their shares of the surplus within a reasonable time. Re Beck's Estate, 31 N. Y. S. R. 965. Same — With Wurtemberg. — The treaty between the United States and Wurtemberg pro- vides that where the holder of real property, which but for alienage would descend to a citizen of the other country, dies, such citizen shall have two years within which to sell the property and withdraw the proceeds. Held, that the alien heir, for two years, has pre- cisely the righte of a resident heir. KuU V. Kull, 37 Hun (N. Y.) 476. ' N. C. Code, 1883, § 7. " Ohio Rev. St. 1880, § 4173. « Oreg. Code, 1887, p. 1353, § 2988. * Bright. Prud. Dig. 1883, p. 84, et seq. Alien friends by this statute may hold real estate not exceeding five thousand acres in extent. Alien enemies having declared their intention to become citi- zens are allowed to hold lands not exceeding two hundred acres in quantity nor two thou- sand dollars in value. Chap. I. § 242.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. Island,^ South Carolina,^ Tennessee,^ Texas/ Virginia/ West Virginia/ and Wisconsin.'^ ' R. I. Pub. St. 1883, p. 442, § 6. ' S. C. Gen. St. iy82. § 1847. The South Carolina statnts of 1799, authorizing denizens, or persons who have taken the oath of allegiance, who are residents of that state, to hold real estate, does not render such persons capable of inherit- ing real estate. The effect of that statute seems only to be, to enable a denizen to hold real estate during his life, and to deprive the state of the right of escheat during that time, but not to remove the common-law disability to inherit. McClenaghan r. McClenaghan, 1 Strob. (S. C.) Eq. 295 ; s.c. 47 Am. Dec. 532. ' Tenn. Code, 1884, § 2804, et seq. See : Starks v. Traynor, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 292 ; Emmett v. Emmett, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 369. The Tennessee act of 1809, c. 53, provides that where any person shall die intestate and without issue, his estata shall descend to the next of kin to the dece- dent, resident in the United States, to tne exclusion of aliens related to the decedent in a nearer degree. It results from this statute, that, contrary to the course of the common law, the course of descent is not broken or changed by the alienage of the ancestor of the next resident of kin, but that such next of kin shall inherit just as if such alien ancestor had been a resident or natiu-al- ized citizen, and had died. Starks v. Traynor, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 293. Dower of wife deserted in foreign crantry. — In Tennessee the widow of an alien who deserted her abroad, and came to Tennes- see, there acquired land, and died, was entitled to dower in such land. Emmett v. Emmett, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 369. «Tex. Rev. St. 1887, art. 1658. Under this statute property must be claimed within nine years. See : Settegast v. Sohrimpf , 35 Tex. 323 ; Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156 ; bk. 30 L. ed. 396. Statutes — Act of Jan. 28, 1840, § 14, regulating descents, and its re-enactment March 8, 1848 (Pasoh. Dig., art. 44), demon- strate that the rule of the com- mon law, which disables an alien from casting descent on an alien, has not been in force in Texas. Settegast v. Schrimpf, 35 Tex. 323. Same— Act of 1848.— The defeas- ible title of a British subject in Texas, under the act of 1848, became indefeasible by virtue of the act of 1854, upon the passage of the English act of 1870, giving aliens a right to hold real property in Great Britain. Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156 ; s.c. bk. 30 L. ed. 396. Same — Act of 1854, giving aUens the same rights as the laws of their country gave citizens of the United States, did not re- peal the act of 1848, giving an ahen nine years after descent or devise of land to him in which to sell it or become a citizen. Hamickr. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156 ; bk. 30 L. ed. 390. Declaring intsntion to become citizen — Invests with citizen- ship. — After a foreigner by birth has duly declared his in- tention for the purpose of being naturalized as a citizen, he is invested, under the laws of Texas, with all the rights of citizenship except the elective franchise ; and therefore he could acquire real estate by purchase, and on his death could transmit it by descent to his children. Settegast v. Schrimpf, 35 Tex. 333 5 Va. Code, 1887, § 43. See : Foxwell v. Craddock, 1 Patt. & H. (Va.) 250. « W. Va. Code, 1887, c. 70, §§ 1 and 3. ' Wis. Rev. St. 1878, § 2230. 224 CORPORATIONS AS LAND-HOLDERS. [BOOK III. Sec. 243. Same— Corporations.— At common law corpo- rations may hold those freehold estates that have been transmitted to them by their predecessors for any pur- poses not inconsistent with those for which the corpora- tion was created.^ In this country the creation of a cor- poration gives it, as incident to its existence, without ex- press grant, the power of buying and selling land ; which power may be denied or limited either by the charter creating the corporation, which will affect that corpora- tion only, or by general law, affecting all corporations ; ^ as in England by the statutes of mortmain, which pro- vide that if land be conveyed to a corporation without license, the next lord may enter for a forfeiture. This power of corporation to receive and hold land is not restricted to the state in which the corporation is organized, in the absence of prohibited statutes in the state in which the right is sought to be exercised.^ The quantity of land that corporations may hold, how- * See : Lathrop v. Sciota Bank, 8 Dana (Ky.) 119 ; Binney's Case, 2 Bland (Md.) 142 ; Overseers of Poor v. Sears, 39 Mass. (22 Pick.) 122 ; Sutton Parish v. Cole, 20 Mass. 3 Pick.) 282, 239 ; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. , 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 437 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 516 ; Reynolds y. Stark Co., 5 Ohio 204, 205; Banks v. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. (Va.) 136, 141 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 706 ; Blanchard's Factory v. Warner, 1 Blatchf. C. G. 258 ; Warden v. Southeastern Ry . Co. , 21 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 886. A corporation whose term of exist- ence is limited to a number of years may purchase and liold land in fee-simple, Rives V. Dudley, 3 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 126. In England there are certain re- strictions in the statutes against mortmains, which statutes are thought not to have been adopt- ed in tliis country, outside of Pennsylvania. See : Rathbone v. Tioga Nav. Co. , 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 74. ' Bank v. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. (Va.) 136 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 706. ^ Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 343 ; State V. Boston, C. & M. R. Co., 35 Vt. 433. Tacit adoption of foreign laws. — It is said by Judge Story in his work on the Conflict of Laws, §§ 35 and 37, and his position is fully approved by the Supreme "Court of the United States in Bank of Au- gusta V. Earle, 38 U. S. (13 Pet.) 519, 589; bk. 10 L. ed. 274^ 308, that " In the silence of any positive rule affirming or deny- ing, or restraining the operation of foreign laws, courts of jus- tice presume the tacit adoption of them by their own govern- ment, unless they are repug- nant to its policy or prejudicial to its interests. It is not the comity of the courts, but the comity of the nation which is administered and ascertained in the same way, and guided by the same reasoning by which all other principles of munici- pal law are ascertained and guided." See : Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 308 ; Runyan v. Coster's Lessee, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 122 ; bk. 10 L. ed. 383. The same principle applies be- tween the states of the Union. Chap. I. § 244.] DIVISION OF ESTATES. 225 ever, is generally limited by the acts creating them. If at any time the quantity or value exceeds the amount limited or specified, the charter may be fortified by the state alone. ^ Sec. 244. Division of estates.— Estates are divided into — (1) those of inheritance, and (2) those not of inheritance,^ Those estates which are less than freehold, as a term for years of land, are called chattel interests or estates.^ Such interests are not equal in the eye of the law to the lowest estate of freehold, a lease for another's life.* While the utmost limit to which an estate can extend is fixed and determined, the interest thereby held in the land is reduced to a chattel interest merely.^ Freehold estates of inheritance are again subdivided into (1) inherit- ances absolute, or fee-simple ; and (2) inheritances limited, one species of which is called fee-tail.® Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 633, 775. See : Howell v. Earp, 21 Hun (N. Y.) 393, 395 ; Gould V. Caj'uga Co. Nat. Bank, 21 Hun (N. Y.) 293 ; affl'd 86 N. Y. 76 ; s.c. 13 Week. Dig. 244; Reformed Pres. Church, 7 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 476 ; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 390 ; Union Nat. Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621 ; bk. 25 L. ed. 188; Eunyan v. Coster, 39 U. S. (14 Pet.) 128 ; bk. 10 L. ed. 382. Devise to corporation — Heira and devisees may question legality. — While it is the province of the state to see to the enforce- ment of the limitations in the charter as to the real property that corporations can hold, yet it has been held that heirs, de- visees, and next of kin are com- petent to call in question gifts of land made to corporations unable to take and hold such lands. State V. Bates, 2 Harr. (Del.) 18 ; Barton v. King, 41 Miss. 288 ; Harris v. Slaght, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 470 ; S.C. 3 Abb. App. Dec. 316; 15 Goddard v. Pomeroy, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 546; Ayers v. The Methodist Episcopal Church, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 351 ; Quaker Society v. Dickenson, 1 Dev. (N. C,)L. 189; Ruth V. Oberbrunner, 40 Wis. 238 ' 3 Bl. Com. 104. 'Hullenbeck v. McDonald, 113 Mass. 347, 349; Ex parte Gray, 5 Mass. 419. See : Spangler v. Stanler, 1 Md. Ch. 36; Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439, 445. Brewster v. Hill. 1 N. H. 350; Priohard v. Priohard, L. R. 11 Eq. 232; 2 Bl. Com. 386 ; 1 Brest. Est. 303; Shep. Touch. 76. ^ See : Prichard v. Prichard, L. R. 11 Eq. 233; 2 Bl. Com. 386. 5 Spangler v. Stanler, 1 Md. Ch. 36; Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439, 445; Montague v. Smith, 13 Mass. 396; 3 Bl. Com. 386. « 2 Bl. Com. 104. CHAPTER II. ESTATES IN FEE-SIMPLE. Sec. 245. Definition of fee. Sec. 246. Definition of fee-simple. Sec. 247. Quantum of estate in fee-simple. Sec. 248. Same— Taken by corporation. Sec. 249. Tenant in fee-simple — Definition. Sec. 250. "Words of limitation. Sec. 251. Same — Bastard. Sho. 252. Same — Informal and implied limitation. Sec. 253. Same — Statutory words of limitation. Sec. 254. Same — Executory limitation. Sec. 255. Same — To corporations — "Successors." Sec. 250. Same — Restrictions on ecclesiastical corporations. Sec. 257. Kinds of fees. Sec. 258. Inferior estates derived out of fee-simple. Sec. 259. Abeyance of fee. Sec. 200. Same — Land granted to pious uses. Sec. 201 . Same — Franchise of corporation. Sec. 262. Same — Present doctrine as to abeyance of fees. Section 2i5. Definition of fee.— A fee, in feudal law, was an allotment of land in consideration of "military service rendered and to be rendered, and originally meant -^ that which, is held of some superior on condition of rendering him services,^ the ultimate property remaining in the superior ; ^ but this strict original meaning of the word as a beneficial or usufructuary estate soon passed into its ' It is said in Wendell v. Crandall, 1 the quantum, of estate, that is N. Y. 491, 495, that the word not its only meaning. " fee " was originally used in '' Wallace v. Harmstead, 44 Pa. St. contradistinction to allodium, 499. and signified that which was ^ Afee is defined by Spelman (Feuds, held of another, on condition c. I.) as the" right which the of rendering him service. It is tenant or vassal has to the use related to the quality, and not of lands while the absolute the quantity of the estate. And property remained in a supe- although the word is now rior. generally employed to express 226 Chap. II. § 246.] DEFINITION OF FEE-SIMPLE. 227 modem signification of an estate of inheritance,^ and as now used the word signifies an estate or inheritance as distinguished from a less estate.^ The word ''fee" was originally used in contradistinction to allodium, relating to the quality rather than to the quantity of the estate ; ^ but when the feudal law was fully established, and it was universally acknowledged that all the lands in England were held mediately or immediately of the crown, the word feodum, or fee, became generally used to denote the quantity of estate or interest in the land ; * and the word is now employed to express the quantum of estate, although it was not in its original use.^ Sec. 2iG. Definition of fee-simple. — An estate in fee- simple is a freehold estate of inheritance ^ free of condi- tions, limitations, or restrictions to particular heirs, but descendable to the general heirs, both male and female, whether lineal or collateral. '^ It is called fee-simple or feodum simplex, because it signifies a lawful and pure inheritance.* The term " fee " standing alone implies an » 3 Bl. Com. 106; ICo. Utt. (19thed.)lb; 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 514 : 1 Brest. Est. 420. •Iiittleton says that "Feodum is the same that inheritance is." Litt., §1. Iiord Coie expresslyadmits that tlie usage here adopted is the more correct.though he has not chos- en to adhere to it. " Of fee-sim- ple it is commonly holden that there be tliree kinds, viz. fee- simple absolute, fee-simple con- ditional!, and fee-simple quali- fied, or a base fee. But tlie more genuine and apt division were to divide fee, that is, inheri- tance, into three pai'ts, viz., simple or absolute, conditional!, and quaUfled or base." Co. Litt. lb. On the next page he says : " And therefore, see- ing fee-simple is hmreditas legitima velpura, it plainly con- firmeth that the division of fee is by his (Littleton's) authority rather to be divided as is afore- said than fee-simple." « -Wendell v.Crandall,! N.y.491,495. * It appeai-s from Bracton, that the word feodum was then ofteu used in both those senses. Et sciendum quod feodum est id quod quis tenet, ex quacun- que causa, sibi et hseredibus suis. Item dicitur feodum aliomodo ejus qui ahum feoff at, et quod quis tenet ab alio : ut si sit qui dicat. Talis tenet de me tot feodo per servitium miUtare. And it is evidently for the purpose of denoting the quantity of interest that the word feodum is used in plead- ing an inheritance in the king, viz. , Rex soisitus f uit in domi- nico suo ut de feodo; where the word feodum cannot possibly import an estate holden, the king not holding of any supe- rior lord, but merely denotes an inheritance. See: Wright's Ten. 148, 263b. » Wendell v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491, 495; Taul V. Campbell, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.) 319 ; s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 508. «Litt. §§5,7. See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 13b, 14b. '2B1. Com. 45, 104^106. ' Jackson v. Van Zandt, 12 John. (N. Y.) 169, 177. 228 ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE. [Book III. estate of inheritance,^ and the suffixing of the words "simple "or " absolute " adds nothing to the force of the term;^ the word "simple" is used for the purpose of showing that it descends to the heirs generally, without restraint.^ The phrases "fee-simple," and "fee-simple absolute," are regarded as synonymous terms.* A man is therefore possessed of an estate in fee-simple where he has an estate in lands and tenements,^ or hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal,^ to all his heirs forever, gener- ally, absolutely, and simply,^ without limitation or restriction as to heirs, but leaving the descent of the property to his own pleasure, or the disposition of the law.* Sec. 247 Quantum of estate in fee-simple.— A fee-simple estate is the highest in quality, the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.* It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise Over, upon, and in respect to the land every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste ; and for all practicable purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibihty of its subject. Sec. 248. Same— Taken by corporation.— That a fee- simple limited to a corporation was formerly, as regards ' Bl. Com. 106 ; « 2 Bl. Com. 104 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb. Old. Nat. Brev. 41. ' Clark V. Baker, 14 Cal. 613, 613 ; See : Canfleld v. Ford, 38 Barb. S.C. 76 Am. Dec. 449, 455 ; (N. Y.) 336. Jecko V. Taussig, 45 Mo. 169. ' 2 Bl. Com. 104. 2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb ; See : Patterson v. MoCousland, 3 1 Prest. Est. 430. Bland. Ch. (Md.) 72 ; * Clark V. Baker, 14 Cal. 613, 631 ; WendeU v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491, B.C. 76 Am. Dec. 749, 755 ; 495 ; Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John. HoUiday v. Overton, 16 Jur. 846 ; (N. Y.) 169, 177. s.c. 10 Eng. L. & Eq. 175. See : Jecko v. Taussig, 45 Mo. 169; « 3 Bl. Com. 104. Litt. § 1 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) » Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 5 la. Den. (N. Y.) 35, 40 : 5 Libby v. Clark, 118 U. S. 350, 2 Bl. Com. 105, 106 ; 355 ; bk. 30 L. ed. 133, 134 ; Cal. Civ. Code, § 762 : Comyn's Dig. tit. " Estates." 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) la, note. Chap. II. §§ 249, 250.] TENANT IN FEE-SIMPLE. 229 the quantum of the estate, not precisely identical with a "fee-simple" limited to the grantee and his heirs, ap- pears from the fact that upon the dissolution of a cor- poration there was a reverting to the donor, not, as upon a failure of the heirs, to an individual grantee and escheat to the lord ; but the donor was deprived of his reverter by the alienation of the corporation. For this reason Preston speaks of corporations as having a fee- simple for the purpose of alienation, but a determinable fee for the purpose of enjoyment.^ By reason of the existence of this possibility of reverter, a condition against alienation annexed to a fee-simple is said to be good in a limitation to a corporation, though such a limitation is bad in a limitation to an individual.^ Sec. 249. Tenant in fee-simple— Definition.— A tenant in fee-simple is one who has lands or tenements to hold to him and his heirs forever. He is the absolute master of all houses and other buildings erected on the land, and also of all timber growing thereon, for trees are con- sidered as parcel of the inheritance.^ He is also entitled to all mines of metals and minerals,* and to take up and dispose of all minerals and fossils which are under the land.^ Sec. 250. Words of limitation.— At common law, words of limitation are necessary to create an estate in fee- simple. The land must be conveyed to the party or parties and to his or their heirs, whether created by deed or devise, as will be more fully shown hereafter.® Any departure from the settled forms of the common law in creating estates with new qualities of inheritance is looked upon with disfavor. Thus the limitation of an estate to one and his heirs "male" or "female," or to his heirs on the part of his father or of his mother, is regarded as a fee-simple, the words of limitation to the ' 1 Prest. Abst. 272. ' See : Ante, § 90, etseq. 2 2 Doct. Stu., c. 35 ; ^ See : Post, chapter V., " Creating Shep. Touch. 130. Fee-simple by Deed," and 2 See : Ante, § 56. chapters VI. and VII., " Creat- * See -Ante, §90, etseq. Except gold ing Fee-simple by Devise." and silver in some of the states. 230 IMPLIED LIMITATION. [BOOK III. particular class of heirs being treated as surplusage.^ In the limitation of fee-simple the word ' ' heirs " always bears its general meaning, when standing alone and un- qualified by words to restrict it to heirs of the body. Its significance is not liable to be restricted to any particular class of heirs, by reason merely of the , fact that, under the special circumstances of the case, only a particular class of heirs is capable of an actual inheritance by virtue of its use. Sec. 251. Same— Bastard.— A limitation to a bastard and his heirs gives a fee-simple, not a modified fee. But where an estate is given to a bastard either by grant or devise only the heirs of his body are, under the circum- stances, capable of inheriting.^ And the same is true even at common law, of an alien, and a man attainted of felony ; though at common law they could, have no heirs. ^ Sec. 252. Same — Inform.al and implied limitation. — It is to be observed that where a limitation is necessary it is not always express, but may be implied ; and all limitation whatsoever is in some cases unnecessary. At common law informal limitation by words of direct and indirect reference would suffice. Thus a father might enfeoff his son, habendum to him and his heirs, and the son afterwards enfeoff his father " as fully as the father en- feoffed him.''* In some cases no limitation was re- quired. Thus, one of several coparceners, or one of • several joint tenants, seized in fee-simple, might release to another without words of limitation.^ On a partition between two coparceners seized in fee-simple, a rent granted by one to the other for equality of partition, without words of limitation, was in fee-simple.'^ By a bargain and sale for valuable consideration, the fee. ' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 27a ; » 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 3b. Com. Dig. tit. "Estates," A. 6 ; * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 9b Litt. § 31 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) ^ i Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 9b ; 37a; Litt., §304. 1 Prest. Est. 461, 473. « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 10a: •- 1 Prest. Abst. 373 ; Prest. Shep. Touch. 101. 3 Prest. Est. 358, 359. Chap. II. §§ 253, 254, 255.] STATUTORY LIMITATIONS. 231 simple might pass without limitation ; ^ as also by a fine como ceo, and a fine sur concessit ;^ and by a recovery.^ Sec. 253. Same— Statutory words of limitation.— In many of the states there are statutes governing conveyances in which words of limitation are dispensed with, and the English Conveyancing Act of ISSl* enacts that deeds shall be sufficient in the limitation on an estate in fee- simple in the use of the words ' ' fee-simple " without the word heirs. Sec. 254. Same— Executory limitation.— It was formerly thought that a tenant in fee-simple, whose estate is liable to be defeated by an executory limitation, stood in equity in no better position, as regards the right to commit waste, than a tenant for life punishable for waste. ^ But it has more recently been decided that, in the absence of express provision, he is practically in the same position as a tenant for life without impeachment of waste.^ Such a tenant in fee-simple may be made punishable for waste by an express provision contained in the instrument under which his estate arises.'^ Sec. 255. Same— To corporations— " Successors."— In the lirhitation of fees-simple to corporations, the use of the word " successor " is necessary by the common law for the limitation of a fee-simple to a corporation sole, and without it only the estate passed for life to the existing incumbent.^ In the case of corporations aggregate, a distinction exists at common law between corporations of which not only the head, but also the body, were persons capable in law, and corporations of which all the mem- bers, except the head, were dead in law. The former took a fee-simple, by a mere grant to the corporation under its corporate name, without the use of the word "suc- ' 10 Vin. Abr. 235, tit. Estate, K. 3, * Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 309 ; pj 2 Stansfield v. Habergham, 10 Ves. > 3 Prest.' Est. 51, 53 ; ^ ^ 373 ; s.c 7 Rev Rep. 409 1 Salk. 340 ; Turner v. Wnght, 3 DeG. F. & J. Shep Touch. 4. 334. a 1 Co Litt. (19th ed.) 9b ; ' Blake v. Peters, 1 DeG. U. & S. 3 Cruise's Fines & Rec. 15. 345 4 § 5, 8 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 94b, 232 RESTRICTIONS— KINDS OF FEES. [Book III. cesser," or of any words of express limitation. ^ In the case of the latter kind of corporations words of succes- sion were needed in order that they might take a fee- simple to the same extent as in the case of a corporation sole. It seems that in the case of all corporations aggre- gate having a head, whether the body consists of persons capable in law or dead in law, the grant of an immediate estate, during a vacancy of the headship, is void ; but the grant of a remainder is good, provided that the new head be appointed during the continuance of the par- ticular estate. 2 Sec. 256. Same— Restrictions on eeclesiastioal corporations. — The nature of an estate is practically ascertained by the privileges of ownership and alienation which it con- fers. At common law these were identical in the case of individual owners and of lay corporations. The rights of ecclesiastical corporations, who are only seized in right of their churches, were less absolute. They could not levy a fine, or bar their successors by non-claim on a fine levied by others.^ At common law ecclesiastical corpo- rations sole could not alienate, except subject to certain precautionary consents ; alienations by bishops needing confirmation by the dean and chapter, and alienations by parsons needing confirmation by the patron and ordinary ; and being, without such confirmation, good during the life only of the existing incumbent.* Sec. 25 T. Kinds of fees.— According to Lord Coke, ^ fees- simple are of three kinds, to wit : (1) fee-simple absolute ; (2) fee-simple conditional ; and (3) fee-simple qualified, or a base fee. The more logical and apt course, it is thought, is to divide the inheritance into three parts, to wit : (1) simple or absolute ; (2) conditional ; and (3) qualified or base. Although it will be found difficult to classify these estates by any well-marked line of discrim- ination,^ yet we shall, for the purpose of treatment, pursue the following classification : 1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 95b. ■• 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 44a. 2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 264a. * 1 Inst. lb. ' 1 Cruise's Fines & Reo. 288. ^ Chancellor Kent uses quaUfied Chap. II. §§ 258, 259.] ABEYANCE OF FEE. 233 1. Determinable fees ; 2. Conditional fees ; 3. Qualified fees ; and 4. Base fees. Sec. 258. Inferior estates derived out of fee-simple.— All inferior estates and interests in land are derived out of a fee-simple. For this reason qualified and particular estates, or limited interests in land vesting in tlie person who has the fee-simple of the same land, such particular estate or limited interest becomes immediately drovv^ned or merged in it.^ This is on the well-known principle that omne ma jus continet in se minus, — the greater con- tains or includes in itself the less.^ Sec. 2.59. Abeyance of fee.— We have already seen ^ that it is against the policy of the law for the freehold to be in abeyance. The fee-simple is generally vested in some person or other, although inferior estates have been carved out of it.* But the estate may be so situated that no person is seized of it in fee, as where there is a tenant of the freehold, and the remainder or reversion in fee-simple exists for a time without any particular owner, in which case it is said to be in abeyance, — that is, in expectancy, remembrance, and contemplation of law.^ Thus if an estate is limited to A for life, with remainder to the right heirs of B, the fee-simple is said to be in abeyance during _ the life of B, because of the ancient, base, and determinable fees Farrington v. Morgan, 20 Wend. indiscriminately, or "promis- (N. Y.) 207, 208 ; cuouslv," as he puts it. 4 Kent Williams v. Woodard, 2 Wend. Com. (13th ed.) 9. (N. Y.) 487, 492 ; •See: Fost, chapters on "Estates Trutch v. Bunnell, 11 Greg. 58, for Years "and "Merger." 63; s.c. 56 Am. Eep. 456 ; 4 ' Gravel HUl School District v. Old Pac. Eep. 588 ; Farm School District, 55 Conn. In re Phillips' Estate, 48 Leg. Int. 244 ; s.c. 10 Atl. Rep. 689 ; (Pa.) 282 ; s.c. 28 W. N. C. 229 ; Chicago K. N. R. Co. v. Ozark State ex rel. Barton County v. Township, 46 Kansas 415 ; s.c. Kansas City F. S. G. R. Co., 32 26 Pac. Rep. 710. Fed. Eep. 722. See : State v. Crowell, 9 N. J. « See : Ante, § 238. L. (4 Halst.) 390, 421 ; * 3 Bl. Com. 107. Hubbard v. Chenango Bank, 8 « See : Matter of Braye & Carney's Cow. (N. Y.) 88, 101 ; Peerage, 5 Bing. N. C. 574 ; s.c. Eeynolds v. Orvis, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 35 Eng. C. L. 402 ; 6 Clark & F. 269 272 ■ '!'5T ; 8 Scott 108 ; 1 West 1 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 342. 234 LAND GIVEN TO PIOUS USES. [BOOK III. well-established rule of law that nemo est hseres viventes, no one is an heir to a living person.^ In such case, how- ever, the contingent remainder is in abeyance, but the reversion in fee is not in abeyance ; it simply results to the grantor until the contingency, or B's death, happens. Sec. 260. Same— Land granted to pious uses.— At common law ^ land may be granted to pious uses before there is a grantee in existence to take it.^ In such a case the fee is said to be in abeyance until there is some one com- petent to take it.* Where a grant is made to a church the fee vests in the pastor and his successors,^ but he simply holds in right of his parish or church ; and on his death or resignation. or deprivation, the fee is in abeyance until his successor is chosen ^ with the custody and right of possession in the parish or church.'^ The minister is ' See : Slayton v. Blount, 93 Ala. 575 ; s.c. 9 So. Rep. 241 ; Doe d. Wright v.Gooden, 6 Houst. (Del.) 397 ; Sellman v. Sellman, 63 Md. 522 ; Johnson v. Whiton, 118 Mass. 340, 845 ; Putnam v. Gleason, 99 Mass. 454, 456; Rice V. Boston & W. R. Co., 94 Mass. (13 Allen) 141, 144 ; Houghton V. Kendall, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 72, 75 ; Bartle's Case, 33 N. J. Eq.(6 Stew.) 47 ; Heath v. Hewitt, 127 N. Y. 166 ; s.c. 27 N. E. Rep. 959 ; 38 N. Y. S. R. 687 ; 13 L. R. A. 46 ; Barnes v. Huson, 60 Barb. (N, Y.) 598; Sleight V. Read, 9 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 278, 281 ; Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 John. (N. Y.) 31, 36 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 390 ; Re Miller's Estate, 145 Pa. St. 561 ; s.c. 22 Atl. Rep. 1044 ; 29 W. N. C. 69 ; 48 Leg. Int. 525 ; Lott V. Thompson, 36 S. C. 38 ; s.c. 15 S. E. Rep. 278 ; Re Parson's, L. R. 45 Ch. Div. 51 ; Frogmorton v. Wharrey, 2 W. Bl. 728, 730 ; s.c. 3 Wils. 144. ' The rehgious establishment of England was adopted by the colony of Virginia, together with the common law upon that subject, as far as it was applicable to the circumstances of the colony. Terrettw. Taylor, 13 U. S. (9 Cr.) 43 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 650. 2 In Rice v. Osgood, 9 Mass. 37, where the Legislature granted a township of land, taking secur- ity from the grantee that he should assign a certain portion to the first settled minister in fee, and a similar portion for the use of the ministry forever ; it was held that a minister, afterwards settled, could not demand a partition of the pro- portion so to be assigned, as a tenant in common with the other proprietors of the town- ship. 1 Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 13 U. S. (9 Cr.) 292 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 375. ^ Brown v. Porter, 10 Mass. 93, 97 ; Terrett v. Taylor, 13 D". S. (9 Cr.) 43 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 650 ; Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 13 U. S. (9 Cr.) 393 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 375. " Jewett V. Burroughs, 15 Mass. 464 ; Brown v. Porter, 10 Mass. 93, 97 ; First Parish in Brunswick v. Dunning, 7 Mass. 445 ; Dillingham v. Snow, 5 Mass. 647, 555; Weston V. Hunt, 3 Mass. 500. ' Cheever v. Pearson, 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 266, 299 ; Brunswick v. Dunning, 7 Mass. 445: Weston V. Hunt, 2 Mass. 500. Chap. II. §§ 261, 262.] FRANCHISE OF CORPORATION. 235 simply seized during his ministry of a freehold in jura parochise.i Sec. 261. Same — Prancliise of corporation. — From the nature of things, the artificial person called a corporation must be created before it can be capable of taking any- thing. When, therefore, a charter is granted and it brings the corporation into existence without any act of the natural persons who compose it, and gives such cor- poration any privileges, franchise, or property, the law deems the corporation to be first brought into existence and then clothes it with the granted liberties and prop- erty. When, on the other hand, the corporation is to' be brought into existence by some future acts of the cor- porators, the franchise remains in abeyance until such acts are done, and when the corporation is brought into life the franchise is instantaneously attached to it.^ Sec. 262. Same— Present doctrine as to abeyance of fees. — The doctrine of a fee-simple in abeyance is attended by serious difficulties, and is not favored by the law, for the reason that the particular tenant or person in possession of the freehold is thereby rendered dispunishable, at law, for waste, because a writ of waste can only be brought, at common law, by one entitled to the fee-simple. In the second place, the title, if attacked, could not formerly be completely defended, if there was no person in being whom the tenant of the freehold could pray in aid to support his right. .In the third place, the mere right itself, if subsisting in a stranger, could not be recovered in this interval, because, in a writ of right patent, a tenant for life could not join the issue on the mere right. In the fourth place, in modern times the courts do not favor the abeyance of the fee-simple, because it operates as a restraint on alienation,'* and all general restraints upon alienation are void.* By the ancient common law the inheritance of land is not permitted to rest in abey- ' Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U. S. (9 Cr.) 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 518, 569 ; 43, 47 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 650. bk. 4 L. ed. 629, 672. « Dartmouth College v. Woodward, ' See : Ante, § 339. * See : Post, § 384, et seq. 236 ABEYANCE OF FEES. [Book III. ance, except from necessity,^ and never found favor with the courts of this country, ^ although the maxim that a fee cannot be in abeyance is not of universal application.^ By act of law not only the fee but the freehold itself may be in abeyance.* Thus where a person dies, is removed, or the like, the freehold of his glebe is in abeyance until his successor is chosen and installed.^ At common law an estate of freehold cannot be made to commence in futuro^ and a deed to take effect at the grantor's death is void,^ and therefore the ' Donovan v. Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411 ; S.C. 25 Am. Rep. 634, 635 ; Bucksport V. Spofford, 12 Maine (3 Fairfield) 487, 495. An estate in aljeyance was odions, because, during its oontiau- ance " there was not seisin of the land, nor any tenant to the prceeipe, nor any one of the abiUty to protect the inherit- . ance from wrong, or to answer for its burdens and services. On this reasoning a particular estate for years was not allowed to support a contingent re- mainder in fee. The title, if attacked, could not be com- pletely defended, because there •was no one in being whom the tenant could pray in aid to sup- port his right ; and, upon a writ of right patent, the lessee for life could not join the mise upon the mere right. The par- ticular tenant could not be pun- ishable for waste, for the writ of waste could only be brought by him who was entitled to the inheritance." 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 280. Same — Eule in Shelley's case pre- vent34. — One of the reasons sup- porting the rule in Shelley's case was the prevention of an abeyance of the inheritance. A result of this doctrine was, that when lands were claimed by descent the capacity to take must have existed in the heir at the instant of the death of the ancestor. " We have no doubt," say the Supreme Court of the United States, " that the correct doctrine of the English law is that the right to inherit depends upon the existing state of allegiance at the time of the descent cast." Dawson v. Godfrey, 8 U. S. (4 Cr.) 321 ; bk. 2 L. ed: 634. ' Fry V. Smith, 2 Dana (Ky.) 38 ; White V. White, 2 Met. (Ky.) 185 ; Stevenson v. Dunlap's Heirs, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 134 ; O'Hanlin v. Den ex d. Van Kleeck, 20 N. J. L. (1 Spen.) 31 ; Johnson i'. Hart, 3 Jolin. Cas. (N. Y.) 322 ; Jackson v. Beach, 1 John. Cas. (N. Y.) 399 ; Moares v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 360, 365 ; Hinkle's Lessee v. Shadden, 2 Swan(Tenn.)46; Sands v. Lynham, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 291 ; s.c. 21 Am. Eep. 348 ; Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U. S. (7Cr.)603; bk. 3 L. ed. 453 ; Stokes V. Dawes, 4 Mas. C. C. 268 ; Collingwood v. Pays, 1 Sid. 193. ' See : Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 202 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 473. * 3 Bl. Goto. 107. 5 See : Ante, § 360. '' Brewer v. Baxter, 41 Ga. 313 ; s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 530 ; Parker v. Nichols, 34 Mass. (7 Pick.) 115 ; Welsh V. Foster, 13 Mass. 96 ; Wallis V. WaUis, 4 Mass. 135; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 210 ; Jackson v. Dunsbagh, 1 John. Cas. (N. Y.) 91, 95 ; Singleton v. Bremar, 4 McC. (S. C.) L. 12 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 699 ; 3 Bl. Com. 167 ; 3 Wood. Lect. 177. ' Jones V. Jones, 6 Conn. Ill ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 35 ; Singleton v. Bremar, 4 McC. (S. C.)L. 13 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 699. Chap. II. § 262.] FREEHOLD IN FUTURO. 237 first estate cannot be in abeyance by act of the owner ; ^ but this rule is changed by the statute of uses.^ So that by a deed of bargain and sale, or by covenant to stand seised, a freehold in ftditro will pass.^ The com- mon law has neither been abolished nor much qualified in many of the states.* ' Jackson v. Dunsbagh, 1 John. Cas. (N. Y.) 91 ; 2 Bl. Com. 165 ; 1 Pi-est. Est. 216. 2 27 Hen. VIII., c. 10. * See : Barnett v. French, 1 Conn. 354 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 241 ; Caulk V. Fox, 13 Fla. 150 ; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Maine 139. 153; Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 498, 499, 500 ; Cook V. Brown, 34 N. H. 477 ; Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 861 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Casey v. Buttulph, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 637, 638 ; Jackson v. Swart, 30 John. (N. Y.) 85 ; Jackson v. Stautts, 11 John. (N. Y.) 337 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 376 ; Roberts v. Roberts, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 140 ; Rogers v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 611, 641 ; Jackson v. McKennv, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 233 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 690; Wardwell v. Bassett, 8 R. I. 305. ' See : Bell v. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706; Gorham v. Daniels, 33 Vt. 600. CHAPTER III. INCIDENTS OP AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE. Sec. 263. Introduction. Sec. 364. Power of alienation. Sec. 365. Same — Definition. Sec. 266. Same — Kinds of alienations. Sec. 367. Same — Same — Voluntary alienatioTis. Sec. 368. Same — Same — Early history of voluntary alienation. Sec. 369. Same — Same — Under the feudal system. Sec. 370. Same — Same — Burgage-tenures. Sec. 271. Same — Same — Alienation of purchased land. Sec. 273. Same— ^Same — Gifts in maritagium. Sec. 373. Same — Subinfeudations — Magna Charta. Sec. 274. Same — Tenants in capite. Sec. 275. Same — Alienation in mortmain. Sec. 276. Same — Statute of Quia Emptores. Sec. 277. Same — Involuntary alienation-^Definition. Sec. 378. Same — Same — Restrictions against, upheld wlien. . Sec. 279. Same — Same — Gifts to charitable uses. Sec. 280. Same — Modes of alienation. Sec. 281. Same — Same — 1. Alienation by deed. Sec. 283. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by matters of record. Sec. 383. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by devise. Sec. 384. Same — General restraints of alienation. Sec. 385. Same — Same — Exceptions to the general rule. Sec. 386. Same — Same — Fee-farm estates. Sec. -387. Same — Same — Ground-rent estate. Sec. 288. Same — Same — Estates in fee-tail. Sec. 289. Same — Same — Estate for life — English doctrine. Sec. 290. Same — Same — Same — American doctrine. Sec. 391. Same — Same — Reason for the American rule. Section 263. introduction.— The law has annexed to every estate and interest in lands, tenements, and heredita- ments, certain peculiar incidents, rights, and privileges, which in general are so inseparably attached to those estates, that they cannot be restrained by any proviso or 238 Chap. III. §§ 264, 265.] POWER OF ALIENATION. 239 condition whatever. The incidents annexed to a fee- simple estate are : 1. The right to alienate ; 2. The right of courtesy ; 3. The right of descent to heirs ; 4. The right to devise the estate ; 6. The right of dower ; 6. The forfeiture of the estate — a. By treason, and h. By disclaimer ; Y. The liability for debts— a. Trade debts, and 6. Debts due the government. We will take up these incidents in their order. Sec. 264. Power of alienation.— Of the several incidents inseparably connected with an estate in fee-simple, the first is the power of alienation. Any general restrictions of this power annexed to the creation of an estate in fee- simple, either by grant or devise, are void, because repugnant to the nature of the estate.^ The unlimited power of alienation comprises in itself all inferior powers. Hence a tenant in fee-simple may create any inferior estate or interest out of his own ; and if he does not alienate his estate during his life, he has the absolute power of testamentary disposition by a will duly executed according to the solemnities required by statute. Sec. 265. Same— Definition of alienation.— An alienation is a transfer or conveying of anything from one person to another.^ An alienation of estates is the transfer of the property and possession of lands, tenements, and other things, from one person to another,^ and is partic- ularly applied to absolute conveyances of real property.* A transfer short of the conveyance of the title is not an alienation of the estate.^ ' Gleason v. Fayerweather, 70 Mass. ' Terms de la Ley, passim. (4 Gray) 348, 351 ; * Conover v. Mutual Ins. Co., 1 N. Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38 Y. 390. Mass (21 Pick.) 43; s.c. 33Am. « Masters v. Madison Co. Ins. Co., Dec. 341 ; H Barb. (N. Y.) 524, 639-630. 1 Co. iiitt. \\9i\\ ed.) 333a. See : Commercial Ins. Co. v. See : Post, § 384, et seq. Spankneble, 53 111. 53 ; s.c. 4 » 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 118b. Am. Eep. 583 ; 240 KINDS AND HISTORY OF ALIENATIONS. [Book III. Sec. 266. Same— Kinds of alienations.— Alienations are of two kinds or classes : (1) voluntary alienations, and (2) in- voluntary alienations. The first is subdivided into {a) absolute alienations, where the transfer is without con- dition or qualification ; and (6) conditional alienations, in which the transfer of the estate is made to depend or rest upon some event yet to happen, or upon some act yet to be done. Sec. 267. Same— Same— Voluntary alienations.— A volun- tary alienation is where an estate is voluntarily resigned by one person and accepted by another person, whether the transfer be effected by sale, gift, marriage-settle- ment, devise, or other transmission of property by mutual consent of the parties. ^ The right to thus alien- ate land and other property is now regarded as one of the most valuable parts of the estate,^ for, as Chief Justice Shaw says in Gleason v. Fayerweather,^ "a chief ingredient in the legal right of property is a right to dispose of it, a right to exchange, sell, or give it away." Sec. 268. Same— Same— Early history of voluntary aliena- tion.— It is claimed by the old horn-book authors that an unlimited power of alienation existed in England in the time of the Saxons ; * but such was not the case under the feudal system, which succeeded the overthrow of Saxon institutions. The early feudal rules regulating the alienation of estates were unnatural and oppressive. The restraint on alienation was a striking part of the feudal polity. By a general ordnance mentioned in the Book of Fiefs,^ the right hand of any person who know- ingly wrote a deed of alienation was directed to be struck off." Ayrs V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Blackstone Bank v. Davis, SS 1 Iowa 176, 180 ; Mass. (21 Pick.) 43 ; s.c. 33 Am. Smith V. Monmouth Mutual Fire Deo. 341. Ins. Co., 50 Me. 96 ; ^ 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 348, 351. Rollins V. Columhian Fire Ins. ■» See : 1 Coke Litt. (19th ed.) 18b, Co., 26 N. H. (5 Fost.) 204. note a by Thomas ; > See : Boyd v. Cudderbaok, 31 lU. Wright, Ten. 154. 113, 119 ; ' Lib. 2, tit. 55. 3 Bl. Com. 287. « See : 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) * Gleason v Fayerweather, 70 Mass. 506. (4 Gray) 348, 351 ; Chap. III. §§ 269, 270, 271.] UNDER FEUDAL SYSTEM. 241 Sec. 269. Same— Same— Under the feudal system.— The genius of the feudal system ^ was strongly in favor of restraint upon alienation. ^ A genuine feud was inalien- able without the lord's consent.^ The tenant had only a usufructuary interest in the soil, without the power of alienation in px-ejudice of the lord or his heir. Fealty and escheat remained in the lord. The latter constituted a reversionary interest in the soil, upon which rested the lord's right to object to any alienation of the estate, which might tend to his prejudice. This severity of the feudal system was diminished by the enactment of vari- ous statutes from time to time, till in the reign of Edward I. the statute of Quia Emptores,^ enabled all per- sons, except the king's tenants in capite, to alien their lands. Sec. 270. Same— same— Burgage-tenures.— It is thought that alienation arose, or at least first became frequent, in burgage-tenures,^ where the king, or other person, was lord of the ancient borough, in which the tenements were held by a rent certain,^ and was usually of a rural nature.'' It seems that the holdings in this class of ten- ures never was very strict. The persons living in that sort of society were sooner freed from habitual rever- ence for tenures, and, because of their occupation, stood in need of more exchangeable property. For these rea- sons it is thought that alienations might happen there more early than among other tenants.^ Sec. 2Yl. Same— Same— Alienation of purchased land.— ' Grounded upon the admission of tiones faus det cui magis velit : the 52d and 58th laws of Wil- fl Bocland autem habeat, quam liam the Conqueror. ei parentes fui dederint, non 2 This restraint was partly in favor mittat earn extra cognationem of the superior lord, and fuam. Leg. Hen. I. 70. partly in favor of the heir ^ gee : 3 Stubbs' Hist. Eng. Const. and the tenant. Whichsoever 172. of these considerations imposed ■* 18 Edw. I., c. 1. the first restriction, it is cer- ' Darl. Fend. Prop. 99. tain the first relaxation of it "1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 108b, 109a ; contained a caution that re- Glanv., lib. 7, c. 3 ; warded the interests of the heir. Litt. , §§ 168, 163. Sel : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ' 3 Bl. Com. 83. , ^^. ^ ^ ^ ,„^ g(] ) 43. 8 See : 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d A law of Henry I. says : Aquifl- ed.) 44. 16 242 ALIENATION OF PURCHASED LAND. [Book III. When alienations had become established in burgage- tenures, the alienation of purchased lands in many in- stances, and of lands descended in some, were by degrees permitted. All these alienations broke in upon the original notion of tenure and its qualities ; and in the reign of King John prevailed to such a degree as to occasion the restrictions imposed by the Great Charter. In these alienations of land some distinctions were made between hceritates and qucestus, between land descended as an inheritance and land acquired by purchase. If it was an inheritance, the owner of the estate might give it in niaritagium, in remunerationem fervifui, or to a religious place in free alms, and the like. But, on the other hand, if the owner had more sons than one who were mulieratos, that is, born in wedlock, he could not give any of the inheritance to the younger son or sons against the consent of the heir ; for it might then happen, from the partiality often felt by parents towards their younger children, that, to enrich them, the oldest would be stripped of the inheritance.^ It was formerly a ques- tion whether a person having a lawful heir might give part of the inheritance to a bastard son, for if he could, the bastard would be in better condition than a younger son born in wedlock. If the person who wanted to make a donation was possessed only of land by purchase, he might make a gift, but not of all his purchased land ; for he was not, even in this case, allowed entirely to dis- inherit his son and heir. Though if he had no heir male or female of his body, he might give all the purchased lands forever ; and if he gave seisin thereof in his life- time, no remote heir could invalidate the gift.^ If a man had lands both by inheritance and by purchase, then he might give all his purchased lands to whomsoever he pleased, and afterwards might dispose of his lands by inheritance, in a reasonable way, as before stated. If a person had lands in free socage, and had more sons than one, who by law should inherit by equal portions, the • See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d purchased, but not, as ia the ed.) 44. civil lavs^, make such donee his Thus a man ni some cases might heir ; for Glanville says : Sokis give away, m his lifetime, all Deus heeradem facere potest, the land vsrhich he had himself non homo. Chap. HI. §§ 272, 273.J GIFTS IN MAEITAGIUM. 243 father could not give to one of them, either out of lands purchased or inherited, more than that reasonable part which would belong to him by descent of his father's in- heritance ; but the father might give him his share. ^ Sec. 272. Same— Same— Gifts in maritagium.— According to Glanville,^ every freeman might give a part of Ms land with his daughter or any other woman, in marita- gium, whether he had an heir or not, and whether his heir agreed to it or not. According to the same author- ity, a person might give part of his freehold in remuner- ationem fervi fui, or to a religious place in free alms, so that should such donation be followed by seisin the land would remairi in the donee and his heirs forever, if an estate of that extent had been expressed by the donor ; but if the gift was not followed by seisin, nothing could be recovered against the heir without his consent, be- cause such an incomplete gift was considered by the law rather as a nuda promisso than a real donation. And one might, in his lifetime, give a reasonable part of his land to whomsoever he pleased ; but the same permission was not granted to any one in extremis, lest men, wrought up by a sudden impulse, at a time when they could not be supposed to have full possession of their reason, should make distributions of their inheritances highly detrimental to the interest and welfare of tenures. The presumption, therefore, of law, in a case of such gifts, was that the party was insane and that the act was the result of such insanity, and not of cool delibera- tion. However, even a gift made in ultima voluntata was good, if assented to and confirmed by the heir.^ Sec. 2Y3. Same— Subinfeudations— Magna Charta.— The alteration that gradually took place in the original strict- ness with which the alienation of land had been restricted finally progressed to the point where, if the tenure was of a common person, he might in many cases make a feoffment of a part thereof. Such a feoffment seemed i 1 Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) ' Glanv. lib. 7, c. 1 ; 104 105. 4 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) 2 Glanv. Ub. 7, c. 1. 104. 244 TENANTS IN CAPITE. [BOOK IH. in no way prejudicial to the lord, who still saw land in possession of a person who was his homager ; but when the tenure was reserved to the feoffor, the homage, as far as regarded that portion of the land, passed from the lord to the feoffor.^ These subinfeudations were very prejudicial to the objects of the feudal institutions, be- cause they stript the mesne lord of his ability to perform his services, and for this reason it was provided in Magna Charta,^ "that in the future no freeman should give or sell any more of his land, than so as what remained might be sufficient to answer the service he owed to the lord of the fee."^ Sec. 274. Same— Tenants in eapite.— In what manner the prohibition of Magna Charta effected tenants in eapite * we are left somewhat in doubt ; some contending that such tenants were never allowed to alien without a license from the king and paying a fine ; some, that after the Great Charta land so aliened without license was forfeited to the king. Others, again, hold that the land in such case was not forfeited, but .was feoffed in the name of a distress, and a fine was thereupon paid for the trespass. This question remained undetermined for the space of a hundred years, when it was settled by a statute of Edward III.,^ which declares that the king should not hold such land as forfeit, but that a reasonable fine should be paid in chancery.^ The statute De Prceroga- tiva Regis,'' passed in the reign of Edward II., declared, in ' confirmation of Magna Charta, that no one who held of the king in eapite by knight's service might alien more of his land that the residue should be sufficient to answer 1 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) culled caput regni ; the second , ,, ^^^' ^, . „„ ^^°^ **i6 iord, called caput ' Magna Charta, c. 33. feudi. A holding of an honor 3 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) in the king's lands, but not im- i T. P-J- „ . . ■ . mediately of him, was yet a * Defimtion of tenant in eapite — holding in eapite. This class Blackstone says (2 Bl. Com. 60) of tenure was abolished by the that a tenant in eapite was one statute of 13 Car. H., c. 34. who held directly of the crown, '^ Stats. 1 Edw. III., c. 13.' whether by knight's service or ' 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed ) socage. But tenure in eapite 340. was of two kinds, general and ' Stat. 17 Edw. II,, 1. special. The first from theking, Chap. III. §§ 275, 276.] ALIENATION IN MORTMAIN. 245 his service, unless he had the king's Hcense for so doing. ^ But notwithstanding the sort of liberty there admitted to he in tenants in capite, these land-holders could never safely alien without the king's license. And if they did, the land used to be seized in the king's hand as forfeit, according to the rigor of the old law between lord and vassal.^ Sec. 275. Same — Alienation in mortmain.— Another means by which the end of tenure was defeated in Eng- land was alienations in mortmain ; for in consequence of these, the military service decayed and lords lost the fruits of tenure. Lands given to religious houses con- tinued in an unchangeable perpetuity without descent to an heir, and therefore never produced casualties of ward- ships, escheats, and the like. To put a stop to these gifts the English statute of mortmain was passed. The statute was never in force in the English colonies in America, and that statute, for that reason, never was a part of the common law of this country.^ Sec. 2Y6. Same— statute of Quia Emptores.— The restraints imposed on alienation of land by Magna Charta being not only violated but generally ignored, the statute of Quia Emptores * was passed to remedy the evil by confirming to the, people a privilege that had already been assumed.^ ' See : 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2(1 ed.) 307. « 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 371. ' See : Perin v. Carey, 65 U. S. (24 How.) 465 ; bk. 16 L. ed. 701. <18Edw. I., c. Ix. ' Quia Emptores never in force in Am- erica — New York Cases. — It is doubtful whether the statute of Quia Emptores was ever in force in this country. It is said in De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 495 ; s.o. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 476, that it was never in force in the state of New York. In this case Chief Justice RUG- GLES says : "In Jackson v. Schutz, 18 John. (N. Y.) 174 ; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 195, the late Mr. Emott, in his argument in favor of the validity of the tenth sales, insisted that the 'statute of Quia Emptores was never in force in this state, and Chief Justice SPENCfBR said that it was never supposed that it ex- isted here." Same — Michigan Cases. — In the case of Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 29 Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61, 73, the court say : " Whether the statute Quia Emptores ever became effectual in any of the United States by express or implied adoption, or as a part of common law, we need not inquire, since it is clear enough that no such statute was ever needed in this state, if in any of the Western states, as no such right of escheat or possibility of reverter ever ex- isted here in the party having 246 INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. [BOOK III. By this statute every freeholder was at liberty to alien all his land, provided he made a reservation of services, not to himself, but to the chief lord, so that the practice of creating new seigniories soon ceased, and every tend- ency in the kingdom was ever after to continue a part of the same fee or manor to which it then belonged. ^ Sec. 277. Same— involuntary alienation— Definition.— An involuntary alienation may be said to be any disposition made of property by the process of law, such as a sale on judgment and execution ; ^ or a taking by condem- nation proceedings under the power of eminent domain.^ Property cannot be granted or devised so that the grantee or devisee can hold it free from involuntary alienation, giving at once the benefit of the full possession and en- joyment of the estate and protecting it from the claim of creditors ; such a restriction or condition would not only be repugnant to the estate granted or bequeathed, but contrary to the policy of the law ; * for it is a set- tled rule of law that the beneficial interest of the cestui que trust, whatever it may be, is liable for the payment of his debts. It cannot be so fenced about by inhibitions and restrictions as to secure to it the inconsistent char- acteristics of right and enjoyment to the beneficiary and freedom and immunity from his creditors. But a condi- tion precedent, that the provision shall not vest until the donee's debts are paid, and a condition subsequent, that it shall be divested and forfeited by his insolvency, with a limitation over to another person, are valid. Any other protection than this against the claims of creditors, how- ever, will not be allowed.^ This rule does not prevent the estate, but the escheat could ■* Blackstone Bank t. Davis, 38 Mass. only accrue to the sovereignty (31 Pick.) 42 ; e.g. 33 Am. Deo. of the state. And, therefore, the 241; question of the right to impose Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41 ; such conditions or restrictions s.c. 67 Am . Dec. 113, 115 ; stands here upon common-law Hallett v. Thompson, 5 Paige Ch. reasons as it stood in England (N. Y ) 583 ; since the statute in question." Pace v. Pace, 73 N. C. 119 ; ■ See : 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ; ed.) 383. Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Vesey ' See : Post, chapter on " Execu- 439. tions." » Niohol v. Levy, 73 N. S. (5 WaU.) » See : Ante, % 333 ; Post, chapter 433, 441 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 596. on " Eminent Domain." Chap. IH. §§ 278, 279.] RESTRICTIONS UPON ALIENATION. 2-iT a person from transferring his property so as to give the benefit of it to a particular person, and at the same time securing the corpus against the donee's creditors as well as his own act.^ The right in the grantor to exempt the interest of a beneficiary from the effects of involun- tary alienation rests upon principles peculiar to the law governing the administration of trusts. Sec. 27S. Same— Same— Sestrictions against, upheld when. — Without at this time entering into a discussion of the principles involved, it may be laid down as a general rule that wherever the interest of a beneficiary is so connected with the interests of other beneficiaries in the same trust that a sale of it would impair those other interests, or estates, a restriction against any form of alienation will be sustained ; ^ but where the interest of the beneficiary can be separated without prejudice to the remaining interests, a court of equity will enforce the claims of creditors against the estate of the debtor, because it is against the policy of the law that it should be enjoyed, and credit re- ceived on the strength of its possession, exempt from the claims of creditors.^ Sec. 279. Same — Same — Gifts to charitable uses.— We have already seen that the general rules against restraints do not apply to estates granted or devised to char- itable uses ; and neither does the rule against involun- tary alienation. Thus where land was given in trust to a church for religious purposes, with a restriction to the effect that it should not be sold or encumbered, and it was levied upon and sold under process of law to satisfy an obligation of the society, the court held that the sale tended to defeat or impair the trust, and that a bill would lie to set the sale aside.* ' See : Post, chapter on " Trust Es- Scott «. Gibbons, 5 Munf. (Va.)86. tates." ^ Rugely v. Robinson, 10 Ala. 703 ; > HUl V. McRae, 27 Ala. 175 ; NlokeU v. Handley, 10 Gratt. (Va.) Johnston v. Zane's Trustees, 11 336; Gratt. (Va.) 552 ; Roanes v. Archer, 4 Leigh (Va.) Perkins v. Dickinson, 3 Gratt. 550 ; (Va.) 335; Page v. Way, 3 Beav. 20 ; Markham v. Guerrant, 4 Leigh Rippon v. Norton, 2 Beav. 63. (Va.) 279 ; * Grissom v. HUl, 17 Ark. 483. 248 MODES OF ALIENATION. [BOOK III. Sec. 280. Same— Modes of alienation. — Blackstone de- scribes four modes of alienation or transfer of title to real estate, which he calls common assurances. The first of which is by matter in pais, or deed ; the second by mat- ter of record, or an assurance transacted only in the king's public courts of record ; the third by special cus- tom ; and the fourth by devise in a last will or testa- ment.^ Sec. 281. Same— Same — 1. Alienation by deed. —Aliena- tions by deed may be by conveyances at common law, which are either original or primary, being those by means of which the benefit or estate is created or first arises ; or they are derivative or secondary conveyances, being those by which the benefit or estate originally created is enlarged, restrained, transferred, or extin- guished.^ Sec. 282. Same— Same— 2. Alienation by matters of record. — Alienation by matters of record may be either by the private acts of the Legislature, by grants, as government patents of land ; by fines, ^ or by common recovery.* Sec. 283. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by devise.— The third method of alienating lands is by devise. This method of alienation is fully discussed elsewhere and need not be specifically treated at this place. ^ Sec. 284. Same — General restraint of alienation. — Re- straints on the alienation of property are of two classes : (1) general restraints, and (2) special restraints, and are directed against the voluntary alienation and enjoy- ment of estates,^ or against other involuntary disposition by process of law. By general restraint is to be under- stood such a restraint as proves co-extensive with the duration and enjoyment of the estate granted, or an ap- proximation thereto. Such a restraint, when attached to ' 3 Bl. Com., c. 20. •> See : Post, § 533, et sea. ' 3 Bl. Com., c. 20. ^ gpg : Post, chapters vl & VII. See : Post, chapters on "Deed." ^ See : Ante, §S 368, 369. " See : Post, % 533. Chap. III. § 284.] GENERAL RESTRAINT ON ALIENATION. 249 a grant or a devise in fee-simple, is absolutely void,^ and has been ever since the statute of Quia Emptores, passed in 1290, otherwise known as the statute of Westminster 11.^ And a condition requiring that the grantee or ' Norris v. Hensley, 27 Gal. 439 ; McCleary v. Ellis, 54 Iowa 311 ; s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 205 ; 20 Am. L. Reg. 180 ; 6 N. W. Rep. 571 ; Smith V. Clark. 10 Md. 186 ; Lane v. Lane, 90 Mass. (8 Allen) 350; Gleason v. Fayerweather, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 348, 351 ; Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38 Mass. (31 Pick.) 42; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 241 ; HaU V. Tufts, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 455; Hawley v. Inhabitants of North- ampton, 8 Mass. 1, 37; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 66 ; Mandlehaum v. MoDonell, 29 Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61, 75; McDowell V. Brown, 21 Mo. 57 ; Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 35 N. Y. 393, 399 ; Oxley V. Lane, 35 N. Y. 340, 346 ; Lovett V. GiUender, 35 N. Y. 617 ; De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470; Sohermerhorn v. Negus, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 448 : Dick V. Pitchford, 1 Dev. & Bat. (N. C.)Eq. 480; Anderson v. Cary, 36 Ohio St. 506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 602 ; Yard's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 95 ; Doebler's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 9 ; Brothers v. McCurdy, 36 Pa. St. 407 ; s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 388 ; Walker v. Vincent, 19 Pa. St. 369; Rueifsnyder v. Hunter, 16 Pa. St. 41; McCuUough V. GOmore, 11 Pa. St. 370 ; McWiUiams v. Nisly, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 654; Taylor v. Mason, 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 335 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 101 ; Ware v. Caim, 10 Barn. & C. 433 ; s.c. 21 Eng. C. L. 187 ; Greated v. Created, 26 Beav. 621 ; Attwater v. Attwater, 18 Beav. 830 ; s.c. 18 Jur. 5 ; 8 L. J. Ch. . 692; Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Hare 475; Stukeley v. Butler, Hob. 170 ; Jones' Will, 23 L. T. N. S. 211 ; Winbish v. Willoughby, 1 Plow. 77; Newton v. Reid, 4 Sim. 141 ; Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429 ; Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. Jr. 324; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 7; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 131 ; 1 Shep. Touch. 129, 131. See : Re Dugdale, 33 Ch. Div. 176 ; s.c. 57 L. J. Ch. 634 ; Corbett v. Corbett, 14 P. D. 7 ; s.c. 57 L. J. P. 97. This is a principle older than the common law of England. — It is said in Grotius, b. 1, c. 6, § 1, that " since the establishment of property, men who are mas- ters of their own goods have by the law of nature the power of disposing of or of transferring all or any part of their effects to other persons : for this is the very nature of property ; I mean of full and complete prop- erty." See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Deo. 470, 476. Same — Littleton says : " If a feoff- ment be made on this condition that the feoffee shall not alien his land to any, this condition is void ; because when a man is enfeoffed of lands or tene- ments he hath the power to alien them to any person by law. For if such a condition should be good, then the con- dition should oust him of all the power which the law gives him which should be against reason, and therefore such a condition is void." Litt. 360. Lord Coke adds that " the like law is of a devise in fee upon a condition that the devisee shall not alien, the condition is void, and so it is of a grant, release, confirmation, or any other con- veyance whereby the fee doth pass." 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 223a. ■ Stats. 18 Edw. I., c. 1. 250 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. [BOOK III. devisee, on alienating, shall pay a stipulated sum or part of the price received to the grantor or devisor is void, because it operates as a restraint upon alienation ; ^ such restrictions being in the nature of the ancient fines upon alienation, incident to military tenures, clog trans- mission of property from hand to hand as heavily as those ancient burdens long ago abolished.^ Sec. 285. Same— Same— Exceptions to the general rule.— There are some exceptions to this general rule. Thus a condition in a lease of land in fee reserving the rent, with right of re-entry for non-payment, is valid, ^ so also is a provision in restraint of alienation in a devise to charitable uses,* as is a condition or covenant in a lease for use not to assign or alienate without license. Sec. 286. Same— Same— Fee-farm estates.— The term fee- simple originally indicated the duration of an estate without reference to the tenure by which it was held ; but after the statute Quia Emptores the term came to represent an estate to a man and his heirs, exempt from all tenure. In all those states where the statute Quia Emptores, or a similar one, is not in force, an estate in fee-simple held upon an annual return of rent may be created. Such estates were frequent in New York until ' De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. we must confirm a condition to 467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, pay any amount. It would be 476; a bold assertion to say that the King V. Burchall, Amb. 379. adoption of such a principle Restraint on alienation ty requir- would not operate as a fatal ing money to be paid for privi- restraint upon alienation. That lege.— It is said in De Peyster ■«. which cannot be done by a Michael, supra, that "if the direct prohibition cannot be continuance of the estate can done indirectly. The enforce- be made to depend on the pay- ment of the restraint upon ment of a tenth, or a sixth, or ahenation, by requiring money a fourth part of the value of to be paid for the privilege, and the land at every sale, it may by a forfeiture in case of non- be made to depend on the pay- payment, separates the inci- ment of nine-tenths or the dent of free alienation from the whole of the sale money. estate as fully and as effectively It is impossible on any known as a direct prohibition." principle to say that a con- ^ De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, dition to pay the half or any 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 476 ; the sale money is valid, and a Livingston v. Stickles, 7 Hill (N. condition to pay the half or any Y.) 253, 257. other proportion would be void. ^ See : Pofit, chapter on "Estates If we confirm the validity of from Year to Year." the condition to pay a quarter, ^ See : Ante, § 279. Chap. III. § 287.] FEE-FARM AND GROUND-RENT ESTATE. 251 the adoption of the constitution of 1846. Where the estate is held in perpetuity by a tenant and his heirs by a yearly rental, it is known as a fee-farm estate ; ^ and a general restraint against the ahenation or enjoyment of a fee-farm estate is void for the same reason as in the case of any other fee-simple estates.^ The right of the grantor to an annual rent in fee-farm estate is not such an interest in the land as will sustain the imposition of restraints against its alienation and enjoyment. The right to the rent, or of entry for non-payment of rent, does not amount to an estate in reversion, or an actual estate of any kind.^ Sec. 28T. Same— Same— Ground-rent estate.— Where an annual rent is reserved to himself and his heirs by the grantor out of the amount conveyed as consideration or a part of the consideration of a conveyance of land in fee- simple, such reservation is known as a ground-rent. Where an estate is held in perpetuity by a tenant and his heirs on such condition, any restraint on alienation is invalid, the same as in the case of a similar condition in ordinary grants of a fee-simple estate, or of a fee-farm estate ; * but a condition for the payment of such rent, with a right of entry and re-entry for non-payment of rent, is not a restraint upon alienation or enjoyment of the estate, and is valid because in no way repugnant to the estate granted.^ Such a conveyance reserving rent oper- ' See • 3 Bl. Com. 63. Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 19 N. Y. « De Peyste'r v. Michael,6 N. Y. 467, 100; 495; s. c. 57 Am. Deo. 470. 476. Shonk v. Brown, 61 Pa. St. 320 ; 3 De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. Irwin v. Bank of United States, 1 467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, Pa. St. 349; J76. Eoab V. Beaver, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) Tajn'v. Beal, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 405 ; 136; . ^ . , , ,„ ,, 4 Kent Com. (13tli ed.) 353. Franciscus v. Reigart, 4 Watts " See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 (Pa.) 98; N. Y. 467 ; 57 Am. Dec. 470. IngersoU v. Sergeant, 1 Whart. ^ De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. (Pa.) 337; ^ ^r v 497- s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470. Nixon v. Rose, 13 Gratt. (Va.) See • Weeks v. Sego, 9 Ga. 199; 435; Perkins v. Hays, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va. Am- 573; Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Pybus y. Smith, 3 Bro C C. 340; Eq. 131, 133; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. Baggett .^^Meux^l Coll.^138; s.c. Dick 'v Pitchford, 1 Dev. & Bat. Robinson v. Wheelright, 6 DeG. (N. C.) 484; M. & G. 535 ; 252. ESTATES IN FEE-TAIL. [Book III. ates as an assignment of the estate without an estate in reversion,^ or possibiUty of return in the grantor,^ and the claim of possession under a conveyance of the kind is tantamount to a claim of title in fee.^ Sec. 288. Same— Same— Estates in fee-tail.— When an in- heritable estate, which shall descend to certain classes of heirs, is created,* which is known as an estate in fee-tail,^ the general rule against restraints applies, for the reason that such restraint is repugnant to the estate granted or devised,^ even though the grantor has a reversion in fee- simple expectant upon the estate-tail, a continuing estate in the soil, upon which the right to fetter and restrain the alienation of real estate has been rested by some.^ Thus it has been held that a condition attached to such an estate, stipulating that the tenant in tail shall not Barton v. Briscoe, Jac. 605; TuUett V. Armstrong, 4 Jur. 34 ; Jackson v. Hobhouse, 3 Meriv. 483; Woodmeston v. Walker, 2 Euss. & M. 205 ; Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429. ' Van Rensselaer v. Hayes, 19 N. Y. 68. = De Peysteru. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Deo. 470, 476. See : Tyler v. Heidorn, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 439 ; Lyonu. Adde, 63 Barb. (N. Y.)89, 96; Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 35 N. Y. 393, 399. « De Peyster v. Michael, 6N. Y. 497; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470 ; Bedell v. Shaw, 59 N. Y. 51. * This class of estate exists by virtue of statute De Souis, West- minster II., c. 1. See : Wight v. Thayer, 67 Mass. (Gray) 284, 286; Hall V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 523* MasUn v. Thomas, 8 GUI. (Md.) 18; Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176; Ransley v. Stott, 26 Pa. St. 126. ' The expression /reetaZZ or feodum talliatiim was borrowed from the feudists, among whom it signified any mutilated or truncated inheritance, from which the heirs general are cut off. See : Craig, 1. 1, tit. 10, §§24, 25. The word is derived from the verb taliare, which meant to cut; and from which the French tailler and the Italian tagliare are derived. See : 2 Bl. Com. 112, note; Spelm. Gloss. 531. " McClearyi;. Ellis, 54 Iowa 311; s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 205; 30 Am. L. Reg. 180; 6 N. W. Rep. 571; Halley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 37; Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 29 Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61; Yard's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 95; Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. 324; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 7. See : Re Dugdale, 38 Ch. D. 176 ; S.0.57 L. J. Ch. 634; Corbett v. Corbett, 14 P. D. 7 ; s.c. 57 L. J. P. 97. The great ohjection to such a con- dition is the fact that it would create a perpetuity. See : Halley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 37 ; Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 39 Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61; Eingu. Burchell, 1 Amb. 379; s.c. 1 Eden 424. ' See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470. Chap. III. §§ 289, 290.] ESTATES FOR LIFE. 253 make a lease for his own life, is repugnant to the nature of the estate.^ Sec. 289. Same— Same— Estate for life— English doctrine.— In England, it is well settled that the grant or devise of an estate for life, or an equitable interest for the life of any person, other than a married woman, ^ carries with it as a necessary incident the right of alienation by the cestui que trust. This doctrine was first announced by Lord Eldon in Brandon v. Eobinson,^ and has been since followed by Vice-Chancellor Turner * and other eminent English jurists.^ The English doctrine has been followed in Alabama,® Georgia,'' Missouri,^ New York,^ North Carolina,-"' Ehode Island, ^^ South Carolina,^ in one of the United States District Courts ^^ and in a case in the United States Supreme Court. ^* Sec. 290. Same— Same— Same— American doctrine.- While in this country the decisions are conflicting, the better opinion, as well as the weight of judicial decision, is thought to be to the effect that the power of alienation is not a necessary incident of a life estate, or an equitable estate for life.^^ In the case of Nichols v. Eaton, i" 1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 323b ; » Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41, Roll. Abr. 418, cond. 44 ; 2 Barton v. Briscoe, Jac. 603. Hallett ik Thompson, 5 Paige Ch. See : Mollvaine v. Smith, 42 Mo. (N. Y.) 583, 585. 45; S.O. 97 Am. Dec. 295. " Pace v. Pace, 73 N. C. 119 ; ' 18 Ves. 429 ; s.c. 1 Rose 197. Dick v. Pitchford, 1 Dev. & B. (N. ■> See : Rochford v. Hackin, 9 C.) Eq. 480 ; Hare 480. Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. (N. C.) 5 See : Trappes v. Meredith, L. R. Eq. 31 ; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 102. 9 Eq. 329 ; " Tillinghast v. Bradford, 5 R. I. Rippon V. Noi-ton, 2 Beav. 63 ; 305. Younghusband v. Gisbome, 1 " Heath v. Bishop, 4 Rich. (S. C.) Coll. C. C. 400 ; Eq. 46 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 654. Snowdon v. Dales, 6 Sim. 534 ; '^ Sanford v. Lackland, 3 Dill. O. C. Lear v. Leggett, 2 Sim. 479 ; 6. Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ; " Nichol v. Levy, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) Piercy v. Roberts. 1 My). & K. 4 ; 433, 441 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 596, 599. Green v. Spicer, 1 Russ. & Myl. '^ Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 735, 395; 737 ; bk. 33 L. ed. 354, 357. Shee V. Hale, 18 Ves. 404 ; s.c. 9 See : Sparahawk v. Cloon, 135 Rev Rep. 198. Mass. 263, 266 ; « Smith v Moore, 37 Ala. 327 ; Braman v. Stiles, 19 Mass. (3 Rugely V. Robinson, 10 Ala. 702. Pick.) 460, 464 ; s.c. 18 Am. ' Bailie w. McWhorter, 56 Ga. 183. Dec. 445; „ „^^ ^ ^ s.McIlvaine v. Smith, 43 Mo. 45 ; Arnwme v. Carroll, 8 N. J. Eq. s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 395. (4 Halst.) 630, 634 ; '8 91 U. S. 716 ; bk. 33 L. ed. 354. 254 AMERICAN RULE. [Book III. Justice Miller, in commenting on Brandon v. Eobinson,^ says : "We do not see, as implied in the remark of Lord Eldon, that the power of alienation is a necessary- incident to a life estate in real property, or that the rents and profits of real property, and the interest and dividends of personal property, may not be enjoyed by an individual without liability for his debts being attached as a necessary incident to such enjoyment. This doc- trine is one which the English Chancery Court has en- grafted upon the common law for the benefit of credit- ors, and is comparatively of modern origin. The doc- trine, that the owner of property, in the free exercise of his will in disposing of it, cannot so dispose of it, but that the object of his bounty, who parts with nothing in return, must hold it subject to the debts due his creditors, though that may soon deprive him of all the benefits sought to be conferred by the testator's af- fection or generosity, is one which we are not prepared to announce as the doctrine of this court. " ^ Sec. 291. Same— Same— Reason for the Am.eriean rule.^ The reason for the American rule holding that the ob- jections to general restraints on the alienation and en- joyment of estates in fee do not apply to estates for hfe, is obvious when we remember that the ground of objection to the restraint in the case of estates in fee is, in the language of Lord Coke, that "it is absurd and repugnant to reason that he that hath no possibility to have the land revert to him, should restrain his feoffee Rife V. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 393 ; s.c. 98 Am. Dec. 351 ; Brown v. Williamson, 86 Pa. St. 338; Holdship V. Patterson, 7 Watts (Pa.) 547 ; Camp V. Cleary, 76 Va. 140 ; s.c. 14 Cent. L. J. 138 ; Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523, 526 ; bk. 24 L. ed. 264, 265 ; Nichols V. Eaton, 91 U. S. 725, 727 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 254, 357. ' 18 Ves. 429. 2 See : Hill v. MacRea, 37 Ala. 175 ; Leavitt v. Bevine, 21 Conn. 8 ; Pope V. Elliott, 8B.Mon.(Ky.) 56 ; Erazier v. Bamum, 19 N. J. Eq. (4C. E. Gr.)316; Barnett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 392, 403; Eyrick v. Hetrick, 18 Pa. St. 488, 491; Norris v. Johnston, 5 Pa. St. 289 ; Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 19 ; Ashurst V. Given, 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 828 ; Johnston v. Zane's Trustees, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 553 ; Markham v. Guerrant, 4 Leigh (Va.) 379. Chap. III. § 291.] REASONS FOR AMERICAN RULE. 255 in fee-simple of all powers to alien. " ^ Another objection is that were the restraint general, being co-extensive with the estate, it would contravene the rule against perpe- tuities.^ But after the life estate the grantor still retains an estate in land, and may be supposed not indifferent about its alienation and enjoyment, and any restriction when attached to a life estate must necessarily be dis- charged within a period of time falling short of any violation of the rule against perpetuities. For this rea- son courts have upheld restraints against the alienation of life estates as being neither opposed to the policy of the law nor repugnant to the nature of the estate to which they are attached.^ > 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 223a. Parry v. Harbert, 1 Dyer 45b. 2 See : Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Restraints in the nature of fines Mass. 37 ; upon alienation have been held Mandlebaum ■;;. McDonell, 29 good in leases for hfe in New Mich. 78 : s.o. 18 Am. Rep. York. 61. Jackson v. Groat, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 3 Jackson v. SUvemail, 15 John. (N. 285 ; y.) 378 ; Livingston v. Stickles, 7 HiU (N. McWilliams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & Y.) 253. R. (Pa.) 507; s.o. 7 Am.Dec, 654 ; CHAPTEE IV. INCIDENTS OF AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE. Sec. 292. Power of alienation — Estate for years. Sec. 293. Same — Estates settled on feme covert. Sec. 394. Same — Estates dedicated to charitable uses. Sec. 395. Same — Conditions in conveyance. Sec. 296. Same — Special restraints — Definition. Sec. 297. Same — Same — Large's Case. Sec. 298. Same — Same — Prohibiting alienation to particular persons. Sec. 299. Same — Same — Restricting alienations to particular persons. Sec. 300. Same — Same — Restricting alienation to family. Sec. 301. Same — Same — Restraining alienation for a particular time. Sec. 303. Same — Same — Condition to do certain acts. Sec. 303. Same — Same — Condition not to do certain acts. Sec. 304. Same — Same — Restraints on estates of persons not sui Juris. Sec. 305. Same — Same — Restraints on marriage. Sec. 306. Same — Same — Restraints on second marriage. Sec. 307. Same — Forfeitui-e — Fee-simple estate. Sec. 308. Same — Same — Life estate. Sec. 309. Same— rSame — Estate for years. Sec. 310. Same— Curtesy. Sec. 311. Same — Descent. Sec. 312. Same — Power of devise — Saxon and Danish rule. Sec. 313. Same — Same — Under the Normans and their successors. Sec. 314. Same — Same — Reason for the common-law rule. Sec. 315. Same — Same — American rule. Sec. 316. Same — Dower. Sec. 317. Same — Forfeiture — English doctrine. Sec. 318. Same — Same — American doctrine. Sec. 319. Same — Liability for debts — Common-law doctrine. Sec. 330. Same — Same — American doctrine. Section 292. Power of alienation— Estate for years.— In estates for years, as in estates for life, conditions in re- straints of alienation are valid, ^ and for the same reasons. ' BlaokstoneBankw. Davis, 38 Mass. 467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, (21 Pick.) 43 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 476 ; 241 ; Hargrave v. King, 5 Ired. (N. C.) De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. Eq. 430 ; 256 Chap. IV. §§ 293, 294.] ESTATES TO CHARITABLE USES. 257 Sec. 293. Same— Estates settled on feme covert.— In an in- strument settling land upon a feme covert for her sepa- rate use, general restrictions against alienation are valid/ where there is a gift over, but void otherwise.^ The reason for the exception from the general rule in such cases is the fact that such estates are creatures of equity, and courts of equity have the right to so mold them as to accomplish the object intended by securing the estate to the beneficiary against the husband. Sec. 294. Same — Estates dedicated to charitable uses. — From the very nature of the uses and purposes of the grant or bequest, conditions of general restraint, on alien- ation in a grant or devise to charity, are valid. ^ But any Morgan v. Slaughter, 1 Esp.* 8 ; s.c. 5 Rev. Rep. 715 ; Doe V. Bevan, 3 Maiol. & Sel. 353; Roe ex d. Hunter v. Galliers, 2 T. R. 133 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 445 ; Church V. Brown, 15 Ves. 258; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 74. Weeks v. Sego, 9 Ga. 199 ; Perkins v. Hays, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 405 ; Dick V. Pitchford, 1 Dev. & B. . (N. C.) 484 ; Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 131, 133 ; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 102; Shonk V. Brown, 61 Pa. St. 320 ; Nixon V. Rose, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 425 ; Radford v. Carwile. 13 W. Va. 572 * Pybtis'v. Smith, 3 Bro. C. C. 340 ; Baggett V. Meux, 1 CoU. 138 ; s.c. 8 Jur. 391 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 228 ; Robinson v. Wheelright, 6 DeG.. M. & G. 535 ; Barton v. Briscoe, Jac. 605 ; Tullett V. Armstrong, 4 Jur. 34 ; Jackson v. Hobhouse, 2 Meriv. 483; Woodmeston v. Walker, 2 Russ. & M. 205 ; Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429. ^ See : Woodmeston v. Walker, 2 Russ. & M. 197. Newton v. Reid, 4 Sim. 141.. 3 See: Yard's Appeal, 64 Pa. St.. 95; Stanley v. Colt, 72 U. S. (5 WaU.) 119 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 503 ; Perin v. Carey, 64 U. S. (24 How.) 465 ; bk. 16 L. ed. 701 : Jones V. Habersham, 3 Wood. C. C. 443. * In speaking respecting Espinasse's Eeports, on an oocasion when the case of Wheeler v . Atkins, 5 Esp . N. P. C. 246, was relied upon by .counsel, Lord Den- man said : " I am tempted to remark, for the benefit of the profession, that Espinasse'sKeports, in days nearer their own time, when their want of accuracy was better known than it is now, were never quoted without doubt and hesitation ; and a special reason was often given as an apology for citing that particular case. Now they are often cited as if counsel thought them of equal authority with Lord Coke's Reports." Small v. Nairne, 13 Q. B. 840, 844 ; S.C. 66 Eng. C. L. 839, 844. The particular case here cited was 17 treated as an authority by Lord Kenyon in Eolkingham v. Croft, 3 Anst. 700 ;. s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 844, decided in 1796 ; but doubt was thrown upon it later by Lord Eldon, in the case of Church v. Brown, 15 Ves. 258, 262 ; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 74, 77, decided in 1808. The sub- sequent cases of Stanways v. Bishop, 29' L. T. 120, decided in 1857; and Hamp- shire V. Wiokens, L . B. 7 Ch. Div. 555 ; s.c. 47 L. J. Ch. 243 ; 38 L. T. 408; 23. Moak's Eng. Rep. 708, decided in 1878, in both of which cases Church v. Brown was cited by counsel in .argument,, show that the courts have not regarded as well founded the doubts cast upoa the case by Lord Eujon. 258 CONDITIONS IN CONVEYANCE. [Book III. restraint that interferes "with the purposes for which the estate is granted will be void. The end and aim of every estate granted to charitable uses is to raise a revenue upon which the charity may subsist, or further its aims and the object of its creation ; consequently, a stipulation in a grant or devise to charitable uses, that the rent of the property granted or devised shall never be raised, will be held void, as repugnant to the purposes of the estate granted.^ Sec. 295. Same— Conditions in conveyance.— Conditions in a conveyance in fee-simple, or otherwise, whether made by deed or devise, are valid so long as the bene- ficial enjoyment of the estate is not impaired ; but such conditions are alwayS limited in extent and special in their character, and are fully treated under another head.^ Sec. 296. Same— Special restraints— Defllnition.-By spe- cial restraint is meant such parcel or limited abridg- ment of the right of alienation and enjoyment as will leave that right not unreasonably impaired or curtailed. Such restrictions consist of almost every conceivable form, such as injunctions against every mode of aliena'- tion, conditions, covenants, and limitations, operating in- directly against the transfer and enjoyment of estates. They will be found attached to all manner of estates, freeholds, and for use, legal and equitable.^ Some of ' Attorney-General v. Masters of Oath HaU, Jac. 381. 'See: Post, chapter on "Estates on Condition." * Metlxods of imposing restrictions. — It is said in Re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 86 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. Rep. 719, that you may restrict alienations in many ways. You may restrict aliena- tion by prohibiting a partic- ular class of alienation, or you may restrict alienation by pro- hibiting it to a particular class of individuals, or you may restrict alienation by restricting it to a particular time. In all these ways you. may limit it, and it appears to me that in two ways, at all events, this condition is limited. First, it is limited as to the mode of alienation, be- cause the only prohibition is against selling. Tliere are various modes of alienation be- sides sale ; a j5erson may ljas"e, or he may mortgage, or he may settle ; therefore it is a mere limited restriction on alienation in that way. Then again, it is limited as regards class ; he is never to sell it out of the fam- ily, but he may seU it to one member of the family. It is not, therefore, limited in the sense of there being only one person to buy ; the will shows there were a great many mem- Chap. IV. § 296.] SPECIAL EESTRAINTS. 259 these restrictions or prohibitions rest upon the capacity of the donee^ and some are created for his protection. Special or partial restraints, reasonable as to time, are usually regarded as valid, ^ even when attached to fee- simple estates vested in persons sui juris, unless unrea- sonable and arbitrary ; and no proposition is better settled in law than that a life interest may be so created and conferred as to be determinable upon the event of the bers of the family when she made her will ; a great many are named in it ; therefore you have a class wliich probably was large, and was certainly not small. Then it is not, strictly speaking, limited as to time except in this way, that it is hmited to the Ufe of the first tenant in tail ; of course, if- unlimited as to time, it would be void for remoteness under another rule. So that this is strictly a limited restraint on alienation, and unless Coke upon Littleton has been overruled or is not good lavsr, that is a good con- dition." ' Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468; CoULas Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 25 Conn. 242 ; O'Brien v. Wetherell, 14 Kan. 616; Gray v. Blanchard, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 248 ; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 N. Y. 35, 38 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 556; Plumb V. Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 442; NicoU V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 12 N. Y. 121 ; Craig V. WeUs, 11 N. Y. 315 ; Stines v. Dorman, 25 Ohio St. 580; Sperry v. Pond, 5 Ohio 388 ; Doe V. Pearson, 6 East 173. See : De Rutte v. Muldrow, 16 Cal. 505, 513 ; Laflan v. Naglee, 9 Cal. 662, 676 ; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 678 ; Langdon v. Ingram's Guardian, 28 Ind. 360 ; Stewart v. Barrow, 7 Bush (Ky.) 868; Stewart v. Brady, 3 Bush (Ky.) 623; Simonds v. Simonds, 44 Mass. (3 Met.) 562 ; Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 42 ; s.c. 32 Am. Deo. 241 ; Mandlebaum v. McDoneU, 29 Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61; Dougalv. Fryer, 3 Mo. 40 ; s.c. 22 Am. Dec. 458; McCoUough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 370; McWilUams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 654 -, Co well V. Colorado Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55; bk. 25 L. ed. 547; ■ Large's Case, 2 Leon. 82 ; s.c. 3 Id. 182 ; 2 Bac. Ab., tit. " Condition," L. notes ; 1 Prest. Est. 478. Compare : Sohermerhorn v. Negus, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 448. Conditions in partial restraint of alienation, as that the grantee shall not alien or as- sign to a particular person, or for a particular time, have been held good, but some of the cases so holding are of doubt- ful authority. De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 476. See : McCoUough v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 370 ; Turner v. Fowler, 10 Watts (Pa.) 325. Condition not to sell. — It is said in Anderson v. Gary, 86 Ohio St. 506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 602, that lands devised to the testa- tor's son upon condition that the devisee shall not sell within a specified time, nor mortgage or encumber the lands, the con- ditions are void. To same ef- fect, Rona V. Meier, 47 Iowa 607 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 493. 260 • LAEGE'S CASE. [Book III. donee's bankruptcy or insolvency, or any act of involun- tary alienation on his part.^ Sec. 29T. Same— Same— Large's Case.— The doctrine of partial or particular restraints on alienation of land took its origin in Large's Case,^ decided by the Court of Queen's Bench in the reign of Elizabeth. Eestraints upon the assignment of leases and against the pursuit of certain trades upon premises were of more ancient origin.^ In Large's Case the testator devised his lands to his wife until his son William should attain the age of twenty- one years, with remainder as to a portion of his lands to two sons, and as to another portion to two other sons, upon condition that if any of his sons should, before William reached the age of twenty-two years, sell or go about to sell his respective estate, he should forever lose the same, in which event it was to go over to another. Before the son William attained the age of twenty-two years, one of the sons leased his lands for sixty years, and to and from sixty years until two hundred and forty years. On suit brought to forfeit the estate the condi- tion in the devise was held valid and the lease declared a substantial breach of it. While this case is usually cited in support of the doctrine of partial restraints, it is not thought to be a very strong authority in support of subsequent conditions against alienation, because the estate that was defeated in that case had never vested in possession, and a vesting was made dependent upon this ' Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41 ; "Wilson v. Greenwood. 1 Swanst. Churchill v. Marks, 1 Coll. 441 ; 471 ; Ex parte Boddam, 3 DeG. F. & J. Dommet v. Bedford,' 6 T. E. 684, 625 ; 694 ; Doe V. Clarke, 8 East 186 ; Higginbotham v. Holmes, 19 Ves. Muggeridge's Trusts, Johns. 88 ; (Eng.) 625 ; Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. Whitfield V. Prickett, 2 Keen. 429 ; 609 ; Shee v. Hale, 13 Yes. 404 ; s.c. 9 Cooper V. Wyatt, 5 Madd. 489 ; Rev. Rep. 198 ; King V. Topping, McClell. & Y. Brandon v. Aston, 3 Y. & C. 558 ; 34. Yarnold v. Moorhouse, 1 Russ. & ' 3 Leon. 83 ; 3 Id. 183. My. 364 ; 3 See : Chinsley v. Langley, 1 RoUe Martin v. Margham, 14 Sim.230 ; Abr. 437. Pym V. Lockyer, 12 Sim. 394 ; See : King v. Castle, 1 And. 123, Lewes v. Lewes, 6 Sim. 304 ; 124 ; Lear v. Leggett, 3 Sim. 479 ; s.c. Anonymous, Dyer 6a. lEuss. &M. 690; Chap. IV. § 299.] ALIENATION TO PARTICULAR PERSONS. 261 condition, which is in the nature of a condition precedent to a full seista of the land by the son whose act defeated it before the time had arrived for its enjoyment as well as an estate in possession. Sec. 298. Same— Same— Prohibiting alienation to particu- lar persons.— A restriction in a grant or devise prohibiting the grantee or devisee from alienating for a particular time or to a particular person is valid/ where they do not take away all power of alienation. The law on this subject is very old, and cannot be better stated than it is in Coke upon Littleton, in Sheppard's Touchstone, and other books of that kind, which treat it in the same way.^ Littleton says : " If the condition be such that the feoffee shall not alien to such a one, naming his name, or to any of his heirs, or of the issue of such a one or the like, which conditions do not take away all power of alienation from the feoffee, then such condition is good."^ But such conditions are conditions subsequent which tend to divest the estate and are to be strictly con- strued.* Sec. 299. Same— Same— Restricting alienations to particu- lar persons.— Provisions in a conveyance, either by gift or devise, restricting alienation to particular persons or- their heirs, are generally held valid, if not inconsistent with a reasonable enjoyment of the estate.^ But it ' See : Langdon v. Ingram's Guard- ' McCollough v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. ian, 28 Ind. 360 ; 370; „„.,„„ Simonds v. Simonds, 44 Mass. (3 Doe v. Pearson, 6 East 178 ; s.c. Met.) 558, 562 ; 2 Smith 295 ; De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. Re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. Gas. 467 495 ■ S.O. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 186 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. Rep. 476'; 719. McWiUiams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & This doctrine has teen questioned R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Deo. in some well-reasoned opinions 654 by able judges, s See • in re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. See : Schermerhorn v. Negus, 4 Gas. 186, 188 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Den. (N. Y.) 448 ; Ene- Ren 719, 721. Anderson v. Gary, 36 Ohio St. s Litt I' 361 506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 602 ; 'Bradstreet v. Glark, 38 Mass. (31 Attwater i;. Attwater, 18 Beav. Pick ) 389 ; 330 ; s.c. 18 Jur. 50 ; 33 L. J. Gadberry v! Shepard, 37 Miss. Gh. 693 303;. Same — In Attwater v. Attwater, Hovt 'v. KimbaU, 49 N. H. 337 ; supra, the courts say : " It is Page V. Palmer, 48 N. H. 385. obvious that if the mtroduction 262 RESTKICTING TO FAMILY. [Book III. is said in Muschang v. Bluet, ^ and approved hy Lord EOMILLY in the case of Attwater v. Attwater,^ that the restriction must not, in fact, take away all power, because, if you say that the grantee or devisee shall not alien except to A B, who you know will not or cannot piTrchase, that would be in effect restraining him from all alienation ; and it is well established that you cannot do indirectly that which you may not do directly.^ Sec. 300. Same — Same— Restricting alienation to family. — A condition in a deed or devise restricting alienation to the members of the family is valid. Thus it has been held that a devise to the testator's brother conditioned never to sell " out of the family " is valid.* So also of a restriction against alienation, except to the sisters of the devisee,^ or to the heirs of a specified person.® There is an American case where a testator, after devising land in equal shares to several children for life, with remainder in fee to other children, declared that no portion of the real estate devised should be sold or alienated by the devisees or their descendants, except to each other or their descendants. The restriction against alienatiqn was held to be void;^ But there are some well-considered English cases on the same point, which seem to maintain a contrary doctrine.^ Thus in the case of Doe v. Pearson ® the gift was a gift in fee upon this special provision and condition, "that in case my said daughters Ann and Hannah, or either of them, shall have.no lawful issue, that then, and in such case, they and she having no law- of one person's name, as the 186, 187 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. only person to whom the prop- Eep. 719, 731. erty may be sold, renders such * In re Macleay, L. E. 20 Eq. Gas. a proviso vaUd, a restraint on 186 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. Eep. alienation may be created, as 719. complete and perfect as if no ^ Doe v. Pearson, 6 East 173 ; s.c. 2 person whatever was named ; Smith 295. inasmuch as the name of a per- « McCoUough v. GUmore, 11 Pa. St. son who alone is permitted to 370. purchase might be so selected ' Sohermerhorn v. Negus, 1 Den. as to render it reasonably cer- (N. Y.) 448. tain that he would not buy the » gee : In re Macleay, L. E. 20 Eq. property, and that the property Gas. 186; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. could not be aliened at aH." Eep. 719 ; ' Bridgm. 137. Attwater v. Attwater, 18 Beav. °- Gited : 3 Jarm. WiUs (3d ed.) 17; 330 ; 18 Beav. 330. Doe v. Pearson, 6 East 173. ' In re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. Gas. » 6 East 173. Chap. IV. § 301.] EESTRICTING FOE PARTICULAR TIME. 263 ful issue as aforesaid, shall not have power to dispose of her share in the said estate so above given to them, except to her sister or sisters, or to their children." In this case the question was given great consideration by a full court, and Lord Ellenborough, who gives the judgment, goes into the authorities very carefully and holds the condition good. He says : " We think the con- dition is good ; for, according to the case of Daniel v. Ubley,^ it was not doubted but that she might have had given her a fee-simple conditional to convey it to any of the sons of the devisor ; and if she did not, that the heir might enter for the condition broken." ^ Sec. 301. Same — Same — Restraining alienation for a par- ticular time.— It has generally been supposed to be the rule of law that a restriction or a prohibition against aliena- tion for a limited time only is valid, provided only the limitation is for a reasonable time ; ^ but doubt has been thrown on the correctness of this view by recent well- reasoned opinions by able judges. In the case of De Peyster v. Michael,* decided by the New York Court of Appeals in 1852, Chief Justice Euggles says: "There are cases where conditions not to sell or assign to a par- ticular person, or for a particular time, have been held good, but some of them are of doubtful authority. " In ' Sir "W. Jones, 137 ; s.c. Latch. 9, ^ Langdon r. Ingram's Guardian, 39, 134. 28 Ind. 360 ; ' Justice Christiancy, in writing Stewart v. Barrow, 7 Bush (Ky.) the opinion in Mandlebaum v. 368 ; McDonell, 29 Mich. 78 ; s.c. Stewart v. Brady, 3 Bush (Ky.) 18 Am. Rep. 61, 75, says: "I 623; think there is much reason to Simonds v. Simonds, 44 Mass. doubt whether this case [Doe (3 Met.) 558, 562 ; V. Pearson] should be recog- Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38 nized as law here, if, indeed, it Mass. (21 Pick.) 42 ; would be now in England." Gray v. Blanchard, 25 Mass. This opinion was written in (8 Pick.) 254 ; 1874. Early in 18T.J Sir George Dougal v. Fryer, Z Mo. 40; s.c. Jessel, Master of the Rolls, 23 Am. Dec. 458 ; wrote the opinion in Re Mac- Jackson v. Shultz, 18 John. (N. leay, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 186 ; s.c. Y.) 174, 184 ; 13 Moak's Eng. Rep. 719, in McColIough v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. which he goes carefully over St. 370 ; the cases, and adheres to the McWilliams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & doctrine laid down in Doe v. R. (Pa.) 507 ;s.o.7 Am.Dec.654 ; Pearson, and distinguishing Large's Case, 2 Leon. 82 ; s.c. 3 that in Attwater v. Attwater, Id. 182. 18 Beav. 330. " 6 N. Y. 467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 476. 264 RESTRICTING FOR PARTICULAR TIME. [Boo:: III. the case of Mandlebaum v. McDonell/ decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1874, it is declared that "there never has been a time since the statute Quia Emptores when a restriction in a conveyance of a vested estate in fee-simple, in possession or remainder, against selling for a particular period of time, was valid by the common law, and a condition or restriction which would suspend all power of alienation for a single day is incon- sistent with the estate granted, unreasonable and void." ^ In the case of Anderson v. Cary,^ decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1881,. where lands were devised upon condition that the devisees should not sell within a speci- fied time, nor mortgage or otherwise encumber the lands, the court held the devise absolute and the condition void.* McIlvaine, Justice, says that by " the policy of our laws it is of the very essence of an estate in fee-simple absolute, that the owner, who is not under any personal disability imposed by law, may alien it or subject it to the payment of his debts at any and all times ; and any attempt to evade or eliminate this element from a fee-simple estate, either by deed or by will, must be declared void and of no force. "^ 29 Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61. effectual in any of the United ■ Good prior to statute Quia Emp- States by express or implied tores. — In this case Justice adoption, or as a part of the Christiancy says that "At common law, we need not in- common law, however, prior quire, since it is clear enough to the statute Quia Emptores, a that no sucli statute was ever condition against alienation needed in this state, if in any would in England have been of tlie Western states, as no good, because prior to that such right of escheat or possi- statute the feofror or grantor biUty of reverter ever existed of such an estate was entitled here in the party conveying the to the escheat on failure of estate ; but the escheat could heirs of the grantee, which only accrue to the sovereignty was properly a possibiUty of — tlie state. And, therefore, reverter, and was treated as a the question of tlie right to im- reversion ; so that the vendor pose such conditions or re- did not, by the feoffment or strictions stands here upon conveyance, part with the en- common-law reasons, as it has tire estate ; but this reversion, stood in England since the dependent on this contingency, statute in question." remained in him and his heirs, ^ 36 Ohio St. 506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. which gave them an interest 602. to insist upon the condition and * See ; Rona v. Meier, 47 Iowa 607 ; take the benefit accruing to s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 493. them upon the breach," and = See : Hobbs v. Smith, 15 Ohio St. that "Whether the statute 419. Quia Emptores ever became Chap. IV. § 302.] TO DO CERTAIN ACTS. 265 Sec. 302. Same— Same— Condition to do certain acts.— Con- veyances by deed or devise, with a condition requiring the grantee or devisee to do certain acts, have been held to be vahd ; ^ such as that the devisee or grantee shall assume a given name ; ^ that the grantee or devisee shall actively assist in defeating a lawsuit pending against the grantor or devisor at the time the estate is given ; ^ that the devisee shall reside on the premises ; * that the grantee or devisee, an infant, be educated in some school, and feared in a particular faith ; ^ that the grantee or donee shall withdraw from tt^e priesthood," or refrain ' See : Hayden v. Stoughton, 22 Mass. (5 Pick.) 528 ; Cornelius i\ Ivins, 26 N. J. L. (2 Dutch.) 376 ; Lessee of Speriy v. Pond, 5 Ohio 387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Deo. 296. Distinction between condition to pay money and to do an act. — Lord Eldon says: "There is a dis- tinction between the breach of a covenant or condition to pay money, and one requiring acts to be done. In the former case reUef raay be granted against a forfeiture, because the money and interest may be paid as a satisfaction. But where any- thing else is to be done but the payment of money, the law having ascertained the contract and the rights of the conti'act- ing parties, a court of equity could not interfere." HiU V. Barclay, 18 Ves. 63. ' Assuming a new name required. — It has been said that where the devise requires the devisee to assume a new name, with a gift over upon the refusal or neglect to comply therewith within a year, the condition is void. Musgrave v. Brooks, 26 Ch. Div. 792. Same — Act of Legislature not neces- sary. — Where the donee is re- quired to assume a new name, unless the wiU so requires, it is not necessary to procure an act of the Legislature changing the name of the devisee to the one he is directed to assume. Barlow v. Bateman, 3 Pr. Wms. 65. See: Taylor v. Mason, 23 U. S. (9 Wlieat.) 325 ; bk. 22 L. ed. 101. It is sufficient that the devisee assume the required name by his own act. See : Davis v. Loundes, 2 Scott 71 ; Doe d. Litscombe v. Yates, 5 Barn. & Aid. 544 ; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 298. Compare : Barlow v. Bateman, 2 B. P. C. 272. ^ Cannon v. Apperson, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 558. 4 Lowe V. Cloud, 45 Ga. 481; Marston v. Marston, 47 Me. 495; Casper v. Walker, 33 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 35 ; Astley V. Essex, L. R. 18 Eq. 295 ; s.c. 9 Moak's Eng. Rep. 809; Wilkinson v. WUkinson, L. R. 12 Eq. 604 ; Robertson v. MoweU, 66 Md. 565; s.c. 10 Atl. Rep. 671. A condition requiring residence in a certain house is satisfied by such a residence as is necessary for the creation of a legal dom- icile. Wynne v. Fletcher, 24 Beav. 430; Attenborough v. Thompson, 2 Hurl. & H. 559; Walcot V. Botfield, Kay 534; Dunne v.Dunne,3 Smale & G. 22. Compare: Newkerki;. Newkerk, 2 Cai. (N. Y.) 345 ; Pardue v. Givens, 1 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 306. '^ Barnum v. Mayor of Baltimore, 62 Md. 275; s.c. 50 Am. Rep. 319 ; 4 Am. Prob. Rep. 305 ; Magee V. O'Neill, 19 8. C. 170; s.c. 45 Am. Rep. 765. ' Bamum v. Mayor of Baltimore, 266 NOT TO DO CERTAIN ACTS. [Book III. -from forming any such connection ; ^ that the grantee or devisee shall provide for the support and maintenance of the grantor ; ^ shall pay off an incumbrance,^ erect a school-house, *_ maintain a road,^ keep a saw-mill or a grist-mill doing business on the premises,^ and the like. But a condition which requires the grantee or devisee to. pay to the grantor or devisor a sum of money upon alienation is invalid, as a restraint upon the estate ' granted.'^ Sec. 303. Same— Same— Condition not to do certain acts. — A grantor of land may impose limitations or restrictions on the use of an estate, and if the effect of the stipulation is not to accomplish an illegal purpose, such limitation or restriction is lawful ; and where it affects the land, or the mode of its enjoyment, its effect is to bind all deriving title under the conveyance in which the restriction is found. ^ These special restraints or limitations imposed 62 Md. 375 ; s.c. 50 Am. Eep. 219; 4 Am. Prob. Rep. 391, 395; Mitohell"8 Lessee v. Mitchell, 18 Md. 405; ■ Yidal V. Girard, 43 U. S. (2 How.) 137, 199: bk. 11 L. ed. 205, 234. ' As not to 'become a nun. In re Dickerson, 30 L. J. Bep. (N. S.) 33; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 149; O'Hanlon v. Unthank, Jr., L. R. 7 Ex. 68. = Eastman v. Batchelder, 36 N. H. 141; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 395. See : Clinton v. Fly, 10 Me. 293; Jackson v. Topping, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 388; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 515. A condition or reservation in favor I of a stranger is void. See: Craig v. Wells, UN. Y. 315, 323 ; Hombeck v. Westbrook, 9 John. (N. Y.) 73 ; Jackson v. Topping, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 388; s.c. 7 Am. Deo. 515; Moore v. Plymouth, 3 Bam. & Aid. 66; s.c. 5 Eng. C. L. 48 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 47a, 214; Shep. Touch. 80, 120. Conditions subsequent, it . seems, can only be reserved for the benefit of the grantor and his heirs, and that no other person can take advantage of the brp9 oh Nicoll V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 12 N. Y. 131; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 137. ' Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35 N. Y. 304, 306; Belmont v. Coman, 22 N. Y. 438; s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 313; Trotter v. Hughes, 13 N. Y. 74. * Hayden v. Stoughton, 33 Mass. (5 Pick.) 528. ' ^ Cornelius v. Ivins, 26 N. J., L. (3 Dutch.) 376. * Lessees of Sperry v. Pond, 5 Ohio 387; s.c 24 Am. Dec. 296. ' De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 476. See : Mandlebaum v. MoDonell, 39 Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 61. Livingston v. Stickles, 7 HUl (N. Y.) 353, 357 : McCollough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 370 ; Tanner v. Fowler, 10 Watts (Pa.) 325 ; King V. Burchell, Amb. 379. 8 Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468 ; Collins Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 25 Conn. 243 ; O'Brien v. Wetherell, 14 Kan. 610; Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448 ; Chap. IV. § 303.] NOT TO DO SPECIFIED ACTS. 267 upon the estate are of various kinds ; such as that the grantee or devisee shall not contest the will/ or assert certain claims against the estate of the testator ; ^ that the grantee shall not become a nun,^ that the grantee shall not sell the estate during the lifetime of the grantor, un- less the latter should sell the land on which he lived ; * Dorr V. Harrahan, 101 Mass. 531 ; S.C. 3 Am. Rep. 398 ; Linzee v. Mixer, 101 Mass. 513, 536; Gray v. Blanchard, 35 Mass. (8 Pick.) 284 ; Cooke V. Turner, 15 Mees. & W. 737. See : Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leav- itt. 54 N. Y. 35 ; s.c. 13 Am. Eep. 556 ; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Libby. 45 N. Y. 499 • Plumb V.' Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 443 ; Jackson v. Schutz, 18 John. (N. Y.) 174 ; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 195 ; Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 35 Am. Deo. 713; Stines v. Dorman, 35 Ohio St. 580, 583 ; McCoUough V. GUmore, 11 Pa. St. 370 ; McWiUiams v. Nisly, 3 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 654 ; Rogers v. Law, 66 U. S. (1 Black.) 353 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 58 ; In re Dickson, 30 L. J. Rep. (N. S.) Ch. 33 ; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 149 ; Western v. Macdermott, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 73 ; WOson V. Hart, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 463; Lloyd V. Branton, 3 Meriv. 118 ; Tulk V. Moxhay, 2 Ph. Ch. 774 ; Chinsley v. Langley, 1 RoUe Abr. ■437 ; Whatman v. Gibson, 9 Sim. 196. 1 Compare: Bradford -y. Bradford, 19 Ohio St. 546 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 419 ; Chew's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 388 ; Thompson v. Gaut, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 310, 314, 315 ; Evanturel v. Evanturel, 23 W. R. 33; s.c. L.R. 6P.C. 1. See : Shivers v. Goar, 40 Ga. 676; Nallet V. Smith, 6 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 12 ; B.C. 60 Am. Dec. 107 ; Runnels v. Runnels, 27 Tex. 515 ; Gregg V. Coates, 23 Beav. 33 ; Egg V. Devey, 10 Beav. 444 ; Attorney-General v. Christ's Hospital, Tarn. 393. Compare : Donegan v. Wade, 70 Ala. 501 ; s.c. 3 Am. Prob. Rep. 206. Snch a condition in a will is valid although there is no gift over. Violett V. Brookman, 26 L. J. Ch. 308; Cooke ■u.Turner,15 Mees & W.727; Anonymous, 3 Mod. 7. In New York it has been held that notwithstanding a clause for- feiting the bequests in case of opposition to the wiU, tliere will be no forfeiture where the op- position is made in good faitli and is not vexatious merely. Jackson v. Westerfield, 61 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 399. In Pennsylvania a similar doctrtne seems to prevail. Chew's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 228. Condition not to oppose wiU— Aiding and advising salt of another. — Under a provision in a will tliat any child who " re- sists the probate or petitions to break or set it aside " should forfeit all interests under it, and that the property should pass to those who liad not "op- posed" it, the court laeld that aiding and advising a suit in- stituted by another devisee worked a forfeiture of the child's interest under the will. Donegan v. Wade, 70 Ala. 501 ; s.c. 3 Am. Prob. Rep. 206. ■•' Chew's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 238 ; Rogers v. Law, 66 V. S. (1 Black.) 353 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 58 ; ( Cooke V. Turner, 15 Mees. & W. 727 * Lloyd'v. Branton, 3 Meriv. 118. » Jn re Dickson, 20 L. J. Rep. (N. S.) Ch. 33 ; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 149; O'Hanlon v. Unthank, Ir. L. R. 7 Eq. 68. ■■ McWiUiams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c.7 Am. Dec.G54. 208 NOT TO DO SPECIFIED ACTS. [Book IU. that the grantee should not leave the estate to aiiy one but the heirs of a designated person ; ^ that no wall ^ or buildings shall be erected within a certain distance of the street ; ^ that there should be erected no buildings but a dwelling-house ; * that no windows shall be placed in a particular wall of the house, or any house to be erected upon the premises, for thirty-five years ; ® that the prem- ises shall not be used or occupied as a hotel ; ® that the property shall not be occupied for the purposes of carry- ing on any offensive trade or calling,'' or any particular trade or calling,* that the grantee shall not suffer the premises to be used for the manufacture or sale of intoxi- cating liquors ; " also that there shall not be erected on > MoCollough V. GUmore, 11 Pa. St. 370. ' Linzee v. Mixer, 101 Mass. 512, 536. 2 Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448. Bestricting improTements on lots • — Benefit of aU. — Covenants or conditions inserted by the owner of a contract of lands in deeds given for different lots therein, restricting the manner of improvement or enjoyment thereof, for the benefit of all the lot-owners in the contract, is valid and wUl be enforced against the gi'antees, or those holding imder them with notice. See: Whitney v. Union R. Co., 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 359, 364, 365 ; s.c. 71 Am. Dec. 715 ; Kirkpatrick v. Peshine, 24 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 206, 214 ; Eogers v. Danforth, 9 N. J. Eq. (4 Halst.) 289, 294 ; Gilbert v. Peteler, 38 N. Y. 165, 168 ; s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 785 ; TaUmadge v. Tlie East River Bank, 36 N. Y. 105, 110 ; Brouwer v. Jones, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 161 ; Berringer v. Schaefer, 53 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 69, 71 ; Birdsall v. Tiemann, 12 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 551 ; Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 713; Steward v. Winters, 4 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 587, 593 ; Stines v. Dorman, 35 Ohio St. 583; Easter v. Little Miami R. Co., 14 Ohio St. 48, 54 ; Clark V. Martin, 49 Pa. St. 389 ; King V. Large, 7 Phil. (Pa.) 285. * Dorr V. Harrahan, 101 Mass. 531 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 398. ^ Gray v. Blanchard, 35 Mass. (8 Pick.) 384. « Stines v. Dorman, 35 Ohio St. 580. ' Dorr V. Harrahan, 101 Mass. 531 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 398. * Chinsley v. Langley, 1 Rolle Abr. 437; 3 Prest. Abs. 184. » Collins Mfg. Co. v. Murray, 35 Conn. 243 ; O'Brien v. Wetherell, 14 Kan. 616; Plumb V. Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 443 ; Cowell V. Colorado Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55 ; bk. 35 L. ed. 547 ; Colt V. Towle, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 654. Condition against tuildings. — In the case of Plumb v. Tubba, 41 N. Y. 443, it was said that a condition that a school-house should not be erected on the premises, or a distillery, or a blast f urnaop, or a livery stable, or a machine shop for iron manufacture, or a powder magazine, or a hospital, or a cemetery, have been held to be valid conditions. The court cite Gilbert v. Peteler, 38 N. Y. 165 ; S.C. 97 Am. Dec. 785, as decisive of the point at issue. See : Collins v. Marcy, 35 Conn. 342; Gray v. Blanchard, 25 Mass. (8 Pick.) 384 ; Chap. IV. § 304.] PERSONS NOT SUI JURIS. 269 the premises granted or devised a school-house, a slaughter-house, a livery stable, a machine shop, a blast furnace, a hospital, a cemetery, a brewery, or a distil- lery,^ or any manufactory of gunpowder, glue, varnish, vitriol, or turpentine, or any other noxious or dangerous trade or business.^ But any condition annexed to a grant or bequest tending to separate husband and wife will be void as against public policy,^ such as a condition that the grantee or devisee shall not support or cohabit with his wife.* Sec. 304. Same— Same— Eestraints on estates of persons not sui juris.— Special restraints against the alienation and enjoyment of estates are frequently imposed for the benefit and protection of persons not sui juris. They are necessarily of a limited duration, but they are imposed upon the person receiving the estate, and do not affect the fee beyond his existence. Thus a devise to a minor condi- tioned that he shall not come into possession, occupy, or have advantage of the estate, except through his guard- ian, is valid ; ^ and in the case of a married woman restraints against burdening and alienating may be laid upon her estate during coverture, where they are imposed NicoU V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 12 Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 N. Y. 121 ; N. Y. 35, 38 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. Craig V. Wells, 11 N. Y. 815 ; 556 ; Lessees of Sperry v. Pond, 5 Ohio Atlantic Dock Co. v. Libby, 45 387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 296. N. Y. 499, 502 ; ' Sfisin-oil— Distillery of, within pro- Plumb v. Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 442, hibition. — In Atlantic Dock Co. 446 ; V. Leavitt, 54 N. Y. 35, 38 ; s.c. NicoU v. N. Y. & Erie Railway 13 Am. Rep. 556, 557, it was Co., 12 N. Y. 121 ; held that whUe tlie distillery Craig v. Wells, 11 N. Y. 315 ; used for the manufacture of Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige Ch. resin-oil was probably not such (N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. a distillery as was contem- 713 ; plated by the parties to the deed. Lessee of Sperrj- v. Pond, 5 Ohio yet the court found, upon suffi- 387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 296. cient evidence,that the business = Conrad v. Long, 133 Mich. 78 ; was dangerous within the mean- Wren v. Bradley, 2 DeG. & S. 49 ; ing of the covenants contained Brown v. Peck, 1 Eden 140. in the deed, and that was * Potter r. McAIpine, 3 Dem. (N. Y.) sufficient to show a breach 108. thereof. * Smithwick v. Jordan, 15 Mass. « Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468 ; 113. Collins Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 25 See : Blackstone Bank v. Davis, Conn 242 • 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 42, 44 ; s.c. Gray v. Blanchard. 25 Mass. (8 32 Am. Dec. 241, 242. Pick.) 384 : 2Y0 RESTRICTIONS ON MARRIAGE. [Book III. in general terms. ^ And are valid during marriage, but before and after coverture they will be as invalid as when attached to the estate of any person sui juris? When special restraints contravene the policy of the law, they are void in like manner as general restraints of a similar nature.^ Sec. 305. Same — Same — Eestraints on m.arriage. — All conditions in a grant or devise of land in general restraint of marriage are void ; * and this rule applies where the grantee or devisee is a man as well as where a woman. ^ But conditions annexed to gifts, legacies, or devises in restraint of marriage are not void if they are reasonable in themselves, and do not directly or virtually operate as an undue restraint upon the freedom of marriage. Thus a testator who has a right to concern himself with the settlement of the donee in life ^ may impose a condition that the donee shall or shall not marry a particular person;'' such as a domestic servant.^ A reasonable' condition limiting the time as to marriage is also valid ; such as that the donee shall not marry until he is twenty- one years of age,^ or until he has secured the consent of parents, guardians, or trustees. •''' V. Salter, 3 Russ. & Myl. ' TuUett V. Aiinstrong, 4 Mylne & Cr. 390; s.o. 1 Beav. 3; Barton v. Briscoe, 3 Jac. 603. 5 See : Clarke v. Windham, 12 Ala. 798; Brown v. Pecock, 3 Russ. & Myl. 210; Jones 208; Woodmeston ' v. Walker, 2 Russ. & Myl. 197 ; Newton v. Reid, 4 Sim. 141. 3 See : Ante, § 284. * Crawford v. Thompson, 91 Ind. 266 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 598 ; 4 Am. Prob. Rep. 598 ; Otis V. Prince, 76 Mass. (10 Gray) 581; Parsons v. Winslow, 6 Mass. 169 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 107 ; Bostwick V. Blades, 59 Md. 231 ; s.o. 3 Am. Prob. Rep. 364, 366 ; WiUiams v. Cowden, 13 Mo. 311 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 433 ; Maddox v. Maddox, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 804 ; Morley v. Eennoldson,2 Hare 570; Lloyd ■;;. Branton, 3 Meriv. 108 ; Reves V. Herne, 5 Vin. Abr. 343, pi. 41. ^ Otis V. Prince, 76 Mass. (10 Gray) 581. ^ * Haughton v. Haughton, 1 Moll. 611; Stackpole v. Beaumont, 3 Ves. 89 ; s.o. 3 Rev. Rep. 52. ' Finlay v. King's Lessee, 28 U. S. (3 Pet.) 346 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 701 ; Davis 17. Angel,4DeG. F. & J. 524. « Jenner v. Turner, 16 Ch. Div. 188 ; s.c. 37 Moak's Eng. Rep. 139. » See : Shackelford v. HaU, 19 111. 213; Maddox i;. Maddox, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 804 ; . Eeuff V. Coleman, 30 W. Va. 171 ; s.c. 3 S. E. Rep. 597 ; Stackpole v. Beaumont, 3 Ves. 89 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 52. 1" Collier v. Slaughter, 30 Ala. 363 ; CoUett V. Collett, 35 Beav. 312 ; Dawson v. Oliver-Massey, 3 Ch. Div. 753 ; s.c. 17 Moak's Eng. Rep. 731 ; Chap. IV. §§ 306, .307.] ON SECOND MARRIAGE. 271 Sec. 306. Same— Same— Restraints on second marriage.— Where the restraint upon marriage is in the form of a condition imposed by the husband against the re-marriage of his widow, with a forfeiture or termination of the estate resulting from a breach of the condition, the weight of authority holds it is valid ; and that restraints against the enjoyment of property in the shape of con- ditions against second marriages, when imposed by the husband upon his widow, are not against the policy of the law.^ But when the condition is subsequent, and the legacy is not given over, such a condition is con- sidered merely in terrorem and the condition is void, because it puts a restraint upon matrimony, which ought not to be discouraged.^ Sec. 30T. Same— Forfeiture— Fee-simple estate.— Where a legal restriction is laid upon the grant of an estate in fee-simple, a failure to comply with such restraint, do such act, or fulfill such condition as the law regards as reasonable in a grant or devise of lands, is a breach thereof, but does not divest of the title. To accomplish In re Stepheuson's Trusts, 18 W. Bennett v. Robinson, 10 Watts R. 1066. (Pa.) 348 ; ' Vaughn v. Lovejoy, 34 Ala. Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph. 437 ; (Tenn.) 31 ; Collier v. Slaughter, 30 Ala. Hughes v. Boyd, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 263 ; 512 ; Doyal V. Smith, 28 Ga. 262 ; Doe v. Driscoll, 4 Allen (New B.) Holmes v. Field, 12 111. 424 ; 176 ; Vance v. Campbell, 1 Dana (Ky.) Doe v. Corrie, 3 Kerr (New B.) 229 • 450 * Bostickv. Blades, 59 Md. 231 ; s.c. Jordan v. Holkham, Amb. 209 ; 3 Am. Prob. Rep. 364, 366 ; Craven •!;. Brady, L. R. 4 Eq. Cas. Clark V. Tennison. 33 Md. 85 ; 209 ; Gough V. Manning, 26 Md. 347 ; Scott v. Tyler, 2 Dick. 712 ; Binnerman v. Weaver, 8 Md. Morley v. Reimaldson, 2 Hare 517 ; 570 ; O'Neale v. Ward, 3 Har. & McH. Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Sim. N. S. (Md.) 93 ; 335 ; Rogers v. American Board, 87 Grace w. Webb, 15 Sim. 384; Mass. (5 Allen) 69 ; Doe v. Freeman, 1 T. R. 389 ; Pringle v. Dunkley, 22 Miss. (14 Barton v. Barton, 2 Vern. 308. Smed & M.) 16 ; s.c. 3 Am. ^ See : Parsons v. Winslow, 6 Mass. Dec. 110 ; 169 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 407 ; Dumey i\ Sohceffler, 24 Mo. 170 ; Bellasis v. Ermine, 1 Ca. Ch. 32 ; 8 c 69 Am. Dec. 432 ; Vintner v. Fix, 1 Ch. Rep. 131 ; McCuUough's Appeal, 13 Pa. St. Harvy v. Aston, Com. Rep. 726 ; J97 . Earl of Salisbury ■;;. Bennet, Commonwealth v. Stauffer, 10 Skin. 286 ; Pa St. 350 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec. Bates v. Graves, 2 Ves. 293, 489; 2Y2 EESTRICTIONS ON LIFE ESTATE. [BOOK III. this, end there must be an entry, or what is made equiv- alent thereto by statute, by the grantor or his heirs, for a breach of condition, to forfeit the estate.^ Where land is conveyed with certain restrictions on the power of alienation, and the grantee aliens in violation thereof, but by subsequent events such restrictions are at an end, his heirs are estopped from contesting the validity of the conveyance.^ Sec. 308. Same— Same— Life estate.— There is no proposi- tion in the law better settled than that a life estate may be so created and conferred as to be determinable upon the event of the donee's bankruptcy or insolvency, or any act of voluntary alienation on his part.^ Thus in the case of Bramhall v. Ferris* the testator provided that the estate or interest granted to Ferris should terminate on the event of a decree or judgment pronounced against him in a creditor's suit instituted for the purpose of obtaining the fund ; and in that event the executors were directed to apply the income to the support of his family by paying the same to his wife, or in any other mode which they in their discretion might adopt. The court say that they " know of nothing in the rules of law to prevent these provisions from taking effect according to the intention of the testator. It may, and should be, conceded, that if the bequest to Ferris had been given to 1 NicoU V. N. Y. & E. R. Co., 12 N. Yamold v. Moorhouse, 1 Russ. & Y. 131. My. 364 ; See : Ludlow v. N. Y. & H. R. Martin v. Margham, 14 Sim. Co. 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 440 ; 330 ; Alleghany Oil Co. v. Bradford Pym v. Lockyer, 13 Sim. 394 ; Oil Co., 31 Hun (N. Y.) 36. Lewes v. Lewes, 6 Sim. 304 ; « Mo Williams v. Msly, 3 Serg. & Lear v. Leggett, 3 Sim. 479 ; s.c. R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 1 Russ. & M. 690 ; 654. Wilson v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 3 Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41 ; 471 ; Churchill v. Marks, 1 Coll. 441 ; Dommet v. Bedford, 6 T. R. Ex parte Boddam, 3 DeG. F. & 684 ; J. 635 ; Higginbotham v. Holmes, 19 Ves. Doe V. Clarke, 8 East 186 ; 88 ; Muggeridge's Trusts, Johns. Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. (Eng.) 635 ; 439 ; Whitfield V. Prickett, 3 Keen Shee v. Hale, 13 Ves. 404 ; s.c. 9 609 ; Rev. Rep. 198 ; Cooper V. Wyatt, 5 Madd. 489 ; Brandon v. Aston, 3 Y. & C. N. King V. Topping, McCleU. & Y. R. 24. 558 ; * 14 N. Y. 41. Chap. IV. § 308.] RESTRICTIONS AS TO CREDITORS. 273 him absolutely for life, with no provision for its earlier termination, and no limitation over in the event specified, any attempt of the testator to make the interest of the beneficiary inalienable, or to withdraw it from the claims of creditors, would have been nugatory. Such an attempt would be clearly repugnant to the estate in fact devised or bequeathed, and would be ineffectual for that reason, as well as upon the policy of the law.^ The doc- trine, however, and the cases on which it rests, do not deprive a testator of the power to declare effectually that the bequest shall cease on the happening of an event which would subject it to the claims of creditors, and then to give it a different direction. ' ' There is, " said Lord Eldon in Brandon v. Eobinson,^ " an obvious distinction between a disposition to a man until he becomes a bank- rupt and then over, and an attempt to give him property and to prevent his creditors from obtaining any interest in it although it is his.^ This distinction is one of sub- stance, and we think the principle on which it depends win sustain the will in the present case. If a testator may provide that his bounty bestowed upon one person shall cease and go to another on the occurrence of bank- ruptcy, I can see no reason why he may not do so in the event of an execution returned unsatisfied, followed by a creditor's suit and judgment therein."* ' The court cite in support of this See : Leavitt v. Beirne, 21 Conn, proposition the following 1 ; cases : Pope v. Elliott, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38 56 ; Mass. (21 Pick.) 42 ; s.c. 32 Am. Sparhawk v. Cloon, 135 Mass. 263, Dec. 341 ; 366 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 445 ; HalLett v. Thompson, 5 Paige Cli. Braman v. Stiles, 19 Mass. (N. Y.) 583 ; (2 Pick.) 460, 464 ; Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ; Arnwine v. Carrol, 8 N. J. Eq. Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429. (4 Halst.) 620, 625 ; - 18 Ves. 429. Rife v. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 393 ; s.c. ^ See : Lewes v. Lewes, 6 Sim. 98 Am. Dec. 351 ; 304 ; Shankland's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ; 113 ; Shee V. Hale, 13 Ves. 404 ; s.c. 9 StiU v. Spear, 45 Pa. St. 168 ; Rev. Rep. 198. Brown v. Y\'^illiamson, 36 Pa. St. * This case is approved in : 338 ; Williams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270, Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 274 ; 33 ; Campbell v. Foster, 35 N. Y. 061, Holdship v. Patterson, 7 Watts 367 ; (Pa.) 547 ; Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 6 Hun Ashurst i\ Given, 5 Watts & S. (N. Y.)31, 40. (Pa.) 323; 18 274 CURTESY— DESCENT. [BOOK III. Sec. 309. Same— Same— Estate for years.— The law relat- ing to and controlling the limitations and conditions that may be placed upon a life estate is also applicable to and controlling in the creation of estates for years.-' The gift of an estate to a woman during her widowhood,^ terminable upon her re-marriage, rests upon the same principle.^ Sec. 310. Same— Curtesy.— Among the incidents of an estate in fee-simple at common law, aside from the right of alienation, is the right of the husband to curtesy in all the lands of which his wife was seized during coverture,* provided a child of theirs, who could have inherited the estate,^ was born alive before the death of the mother.^ This subject will be fully treated in a subsequent chapter,'^ and need not be adverted to here farther than to remark that an unborn child, after conception, is to be considered in esse for the purpose of enabling it to take an estate, or for any other purpose which is for the benefit of the child if it should afterwards be born alive, or delivered by the Caesarean operation ; but it is otherwise with respect to those claiming rights through such a child.^ Sec. 311. Same— Descent.— Another incident, at common law, of an estate in fee-simple is that, if not aliened by deed of grant or the last will of the owner, the estate descends, Tillinghast v. Bradford, 5 R. I. " Pearse v. Owens, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 205 ; 234; White V. White, 30 Vt. 338 ; Evans v. Rosser, 2 Hem. & M. NickeU v. Handly, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 190 ; 336 ; Craven v. Brady, L. R. 4 Eq. Cas. Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523, 209. 526 ; bk. 24 L. ed. 264, 266 ; ^ See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. Nichols V. Eaton, 91 IT. S. 716, 228, 235 ; 727-729 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 254, 257- MoDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 445, 258; ' 448. Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Hare « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 40a. 475 ; « Marsellis v. Talhimer, 2 Paige Ch. Godden v. Crowhurst, 10 Sim. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 66. 487 ; ' See : Post, chapter XVII., " Curt- Twopenny V. Peqton, 10 Sim. esy." 487 ; 8 Marsellis v. Talhimer, 3 Paige Ch. Domett V. Bedford, 3 Ves. 149 ; (N. Y.) 35 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 66. 1 Lewin on Trusts, c. VII. See : GUlespie v. Nabors, 59 Ala. ' Doe V. Carter, 8 T. R. 61 ; 441 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 20 ; Roe ex d. Hunter v. Galliers, 2 T. Hawley v. James, 5 Paige Ch. R. 133 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 445. (N. Y.) 464 ; ? See : Ante, § 309. Matter of Frances Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 513. Chap, IV. §§ 312, 313.] POWER OF DEVISE. 275. without restriction, to such persons as are by law his legal heirs, whether the estate he in possession, reversion, or remainder, vested or contingent. It is for this reason that the word simple is added to the word fee, importing an absolute inheritance clear of any condition, limitation, or restriction to particular heirs ; in contradistinction to another class of estates of inheritance which are only de- scendable to some particular heirs. The rules of descent in this country depend rather upon the local statutes of the several states, and will be found fully treated in another chapter of this work.^ Sec. 312. Same— Power of devise— Saxon and Danish rule.— Before the establishment of the feudal system by William the Conqueror and his successors, there existed in England a testamentary power over land. This power seems to have been rather adapted from the remnant of the Eoman laws and customs found in that country, than brought over from their own country.^ Sec. 313. Same — Sam.e— Under the Normans and their successors.— After the Norman Conquest the power of devising land ceased, except as to socage lands in some particular places, such as cities and boroughs, in which it was still preserved ; and also except as to terms for years or chattel interests in land, which, on account of their original insignificance, were deemed personalty, and as such were ever disposable by will. This limitation of the testamentary power proceeded partly from the solemn form of transferring land by livery of seisin, introduced at the Conquest, which could not be complied with in the case of a last will, and partly from a jealousy of deathbed dispositions ; but principally from the general restraint of alienation incident to the rigors of the feudal system, as it was established, or at least perfected, by William I.^ In the reign of Edward I. the statute of Quia Emptores re- moved in a great measure this latter bar to the exercise of testamentary power ; that is, in respect to all free- 'See: Post, chapter VIII., " De- cuique liberi et nullum testa- scent of Fee-simple Estate." mentum." Tac. Posthum. 31. « In writing of the ancient Germans 127 . Tacitus says :" Successores sui » See : Wright's Ten. 173. 276 REASONS FOE RULE. [Book IIL holders, except the king's tenants in capite. But the two former obstructions still continued to operate, though indeed this was in name and appearance only ; for soon after the statute of Quia Emptores feoffments to uses came into fashion, and last wills were enforced in chan- cery as good declarations of the use ; and thus through the medium of uses the power of devising was continually exercised in effect and reality. But at length this practice was checked, not accidentally, but designedly, during the reign of Henry VIII., ^ by a statute which, by transferring the possession or legal estate to the use, necessarily and compulsively consolidated them into one, and so had the effect of wholly destroying all distinction between them, till the means to evade the statute, and, by a very strained con- struction, to make its operation dependent on the intention of parties, were invented. However, the bent of the times was so strong in favor of every kind of alienation, that the Legislature, in a few years after having inter- posed to restrain an indirect mode of passing land by wills, expressly made it devisable. This great change of the common law was effected by statutes also passed during the reign of Henry VIII., ^ which, taken together, gave the power of devising to all having estates in fee- simple, except in joint tenancy, over the whole of their socage land, and over two-thirds of their lands holden by knight's service.^ Sec. 314. Same— Same— Reason for the common-law rule.— As we have seen, at early common law land could not be be disposed of by will.* The reason for this seems to have been the inability of the devisor to consummate the alienation by livery of seisin either in deed or in law,* ' Stat. 27 Hen. VIII. be two kinds of livery of seisin, ' 33 & 34 Hen. VIII. viz., a liverie in deed, and a ' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) Ilia, livery in law. A livery in deed note (1). is when the feofeer taketh the ■* See : Ante, § 313 ; ring of the doore, or turfe or 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 111b, note twigge of the land, and deliver- (!)• eth the same upon the land to Lord Bacon says that lands are the feoffee in name of seisin of not "testamentary and devis- the land, etc., per hostium et able at common law." Bacon's per haspam et annulum vel per Tracts, 316. fustem velbaculum,"etc. 1 Co. ' Kinds of livery of seisin.—" There Litt. (19th ed.) 48a. Chap. IV. § 318.] AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RULES. 277 which was indispensable at common law.^ This livery of seisin is no other than the pure feudal investiture or delivery by corporeal transactions, nam feudum sine investitatura nuUo modo constitui potuit ; ^ and the estate was then only perfect when there was a joinder of right and possession, fit juris et sui nee conjunctio.^ Sec. 315. Same — Same — American rule. — The power to devise real property in this country, like the rule of descent, is regulated almost exclusively by the local statutes in the various states, and will come up for full consideration hereafter.* Sec. 316. Same— Dower.— At common law all estates in fee-simple are subject to an inchoate or actual right of dower in the wife ; and such is the rule in all the states in this country except those in which curtesy and dower have been done away with by statute. The subject is fully treated in a separate chapter hereafter.^ Sec. 31T. Same — Forfeiture- English doctrine.- By the common law of England estates in fee-simple are forfeited to the crown by attainder of treason ; ® and the lands whereof a person so attainted died seized in fee-simple become vested forever in the crown, '^ without any office ; because they could not descend on account of the corrup- tion of blood of the person last seized ; and the freehold cannot be in abeyance.^ Sec. 318. Same— Same— American doetrine.—In this coun- try, however, no attainder of treason against the federal government works corruption of blood, or forfeiture of ' 2 Bl. Com. 311 ; * See : Post, chapters VI. and VII., 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 48a. " Creation of Fee-simple by ' For a "fee cannot in any maimer Devise." be made without giving posses- ^ See : Post, chapter XVIII., sion. Wright, Ten. 37. "Dower." 3 Fleta, 1. 3, c. 15, § 5. . '4 Bl. Com. 881; The degree of possession made a sub- 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 392. ject of very minute distinction ' Lord de la Warre's Case, 11 Co. and refinement at this time, and la ; is discoursed on by Bracton at 4 Bl. Com. 381. length. Brae. 38l'b. See ; Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Eden See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. 201 ; C2d ed ) 303. Wheatly v. Thomas, Lev. 74. *■ '' 8 2Hawk. P. C.,c. 4, §1. 278 LIABILITY FOB DEBTS. [Book IU. property, except during the life of the person attainted. •■ Though forfeiture for treason against the general govern- ment of the United States has been abolished, it is thought still to exist, by common law, against those individual states which have not expressly abolished it.^ Seo 319. Same — Iiiability for debts — Common-law doe- trine.— Another incident of an estate in fee-simple is its liability for the debts of the owner. This liability was not originally an incident of real estate, which was first made liable to execution for the debts of the owner dur- ing his lifetime by statute of Edward I. '; ^ but there was no positive English law until a statute was passed in the reign of William IV.,* providing for subjecting the estates of decedents to the satisfaction of all the debts of the ancestor. After this time estates of which a person died seized in fee-simple, and which descended upon the heir, were liable in the hands of the heir to the payment of all debts of the ancestor by a specialty, in which ^he heir was expressly mentioned as bound ; but if the heir aliened before the action was brought, the creditor was without remedy ; and where the person so dying seized was indebted hj bond or other specialty, and devised the estate, the creditor had no remedy against the devisee. ** Sec. 320. Same— Same— American doctrine.— In this coun- try lands are subject to the payment of the debts of the owner, in all forms of action, both before and after his death, and in the hands of heirs and deviseps," accord- ' U. S. Const., art. 3, § 3. Wyman v. Brigden, 4 Mass. See : Wallaoh v. Van Riswick, 92 150 ; U. S. 303 ; bk. 38 L. ed. 473; Bellas v. McCarthy, 10 Watts Day V. Mioou, 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) (Pa.) 13 ; 156 ; bk. 31 L. ed. 860 ; Petition of Johnson, 15 K. I. 438 ; Bigelow V. Forrest, 76 U. S. s.c. Atl. Rep. 248 ; 3 New Eng. (9 Wall.) 339 ; bk. 19 L. ed. 696. Rep. 635 ; ' See : 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 386. Watkins v. Holman, 39 U. S. (16 ■' Stat. 13 Edw. I., c. 18. Pet.) 35, 63 ; bk. 10 L. ed. 873, " Stats. 3.& 4 WiU. IV., o. 104. 888. * See : Davy v. Pepys, 3 Plow. 439 ; The sale of the decedent's estate Buckley v. Nightingale, 1 Stran. will be authorized by probate 665. ■ courts for the payment of his « See : Millard v. Harris, 119 IU. debts at any time while such 185 ; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. 387 ; 8 land remains in the hand of West. Rep. 57 ; his heirs and devisee. Chap. IV. § 320.] AMERICAN DOCTRINE. 279 ing to the laws of the state in which the lands are situated.^ Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 360 ; Petition lie Johnson, 15 R. 1. 438 ; s.c. 8 Atl. Rep. 248; 3 New Eng. Rep. 635. An executor may sell the interest of a devisee in lands. for the payment of such debts of the testator as are not barred by the statute of limitations. Millard v. Harris, 119 lU. 185 ; S.C. 10 N. E. Rep. 387 ; 8 West. Rep. 57. Bruch V. Lantz, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 892 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 458 ; Sands v. Lynham, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 391 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 348 ; Watkins v. Holman, 39 U. S. (16 Pet.) 35; bk. 10 L. ed. 873. CHAPTEE V. CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATE BY DEED. Sec. 331. Methods of creating fee-simple estates. Sec. 322. Same — Common-law rule— 7Apt words. Sec. 323. Same — ^Whole estate need not be conveyed. Sec. 324. Same — Reservations. Sec. 335. " Heirs " cannot be supplied with any other word. Sec. 326. Same — Must appear in operative part of deed. Sec. 327. Same — Supplied by reference to other instruments. Sec. 338. Same — Exceptions to the rule. Sec. 339. Same — Same — Deeds in trust ajid equitable estates. Sec. 830. Same — Same — Deed to corporation. Sec. 331. Same — Same — Deed to sovereign. Sec. 333. Same — Abrogation of rule by statute. Sec. 333. " Heirs "—Definition. Sec. 834. Same — Word of limitation, not of purchase. Sec. 835. Same — Construed " children " when. Sec. 336. Same — ^When to be ascertained. Sec. 337. Same — "Present heirs." Sec. 338. Same—" Bodily heirs " or " heirs of the body." Section 321. Methods of creating fee-simple estates.— An estate in fee-simple may be created either by deed of gift or by devise. While estates created by these methods are alike, the words made use of in creating the respect- ive estates, and the rules of interpretation applied by the courts to the instruments, are different. A deed is mtich more strictly construed than a will.^ In this chapter will be given the rules relating to the creation of a fee- simple estate by deed, the words necessary to be used, and the rules of interpretation applied by the courts. ' " Heirs " necessary to vest fee- being a natural person, though simple. — The general rule of the rule is more flexible and law is that both in a deed and more readily relaxed in a will in. a will the word " heirs " is than in a deed, necessary to vest a fee-simple Cleveland v. Hallett, 60 Mass. in the devisee, the %rantee 403, 407, 280 Chap. V. §§ 322, 323.] EULE AS TO APT WORDS. 281 Sec. 322. Same— Common-law rule— Apt words.— At com- mon law an estate in fee-simple could not be created in a natural person without the use of apt words to that end/ /among which is the word " heirs," accompanied, it would seem, by the possessive pronoun, for these words make the estate of inheritance.'^ None of the rules of the com- mon law were more inflexible and rigidly adhered to than this one, even the manifest intention of the parties to a deed being made to give way before it. This inflex- ible rule of the common law, in all its uncompromising nature, is applicable in this country in all the states where not abrogated or modifled by statute.^ In con- struing a deed the question is not what estate did the grantor intend to pass, but what did he pass by apt and proper words. If he has failed to use the proper words in expression of intent, no amount of recital showing the intent will supply the omission.* Sec. 323. Same— Wh-ole estate need not be conveyed.— The whole estate need not be conveyed. A fee may be properly granted accompanied by a reservation of the usufruct to the grantor for life. Thus a deed providing that possession is to be given at the death of the grantor is valid ; ^ and where a deed is made to a person and to her heirs and assigns forever, in consideration of love, ' No particular form of words is Merritt v. Disney, 48 Md. 344 ; necessary, in some states, to Reaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 36 ; convey realty, any words de- Hogan's Heirs i'. Welcker, 14 Mo. noting an intention to transfer 177 ; the title being suiHcient. Sisson v. Donnelly, 36 N. J. L. (7 See : Gambril v. Doe ex d. Rose, Vr.) 433 ; 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 140 ; s.c. 44 Jackson v. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.) Am. Dec. 760 ; 388 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 504 ; Bridge v. Wellington, 1 Mass. Fray v. Packer, 4 Watts & S. 319 ; (Pa.) 17 ; 2 Bl Com 398 ; Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 460. St. 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474 ; ' Litt 4 1 Roberts v. Forsythe, 3 Dev. (S. See": 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) la. C.) L. 36 ; „^^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^ 3 Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. 223 ; Adams v. Ross, oO N. J. L. (1 Vr.) Edwardsville R. Co. v. Sawyer, 505; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 337; 93 111 377 • 3 Prest. Est. 11, 12. Bean v French, 140 Mass. 229, * Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.) 231 . 505 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 337. Sedeewick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10 ' Waugh's Executors v. Waugh, 84 AUen) 430 ; Pa. St. 350 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. BufBn V. Hutchinson, 83 Mass. (1 191. Allen) 58 ; 282 WHAT ESTATE CONVEYED. [Book III. -good- will, and affection, reserving the use of the lands duriag the grantor's natural life, it conveys a fee in prce- senti, subject to the life estate. ^ It is said by the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in the case of Cribb v. Rogers,^ — where it was " argued that under the operation of the statute of uses the fee was, at the moment of its creation, thrown upon the grantor by the execution of its uses, and thus the deed rendered ineffectual, " — that " the statute of uses could not operate until there was such a title in the grantee as the deed was intended to vest, and this was a fee. The only effect of the statute would, assum- ing its operation, be to cast upon the grantor an estate commensurate with the uses created by the deed, and that would be a life estate, leaving a remainder in fee vested in the grantee which would owe its existence as such, not to the deed, but to the operation of the statute. The rules of the common law, as it regards the support required for a remainder, are therefore inapplicable, for the deed does not create a remainder as such. The statute cannot operate to defeat the deed, for it was not intended to have such effect, but only to effectuate its purposes by raising estates competent to give the fullest support to its uses.^ The present interest was conveyed by the deed in Jenkins v. Jenkins,* as it was to take effect only upon the death of the grantor. It is contrary to the nature of a deed that it should commence to operate as such at a time subsequent to its delivery ; on the contrary, it must take effect, if at all, from the moment of delivery to operate as a deed, though in cer- tain cases it may be upheld as a covenant to stand seized to the use of the grantee." Sec. 324. Same— Beservations.— Where it is sought to create a reservation or to make an exception * in favor of ' Cribb V. Rogers, 12 S. C. 564 ; Jaggers v. Estes, 2 Strobh. (S; s.o. 32 Am. Rep. 511. C.) Eq. 343, 376 ; s.c. 49 Am. = 12 S. C. 564 : s.c. 32 Am. Rep. 511. Deo. 674 ; and Singleton v. 8 Jenkins v. Jenkins, 1 Mills (8. C.) Bremar, 4 McC. (8. C.) L 15 48. " 1 MiUs (S. C.) 48. This case fully sustains the con- * Eeservations and exceptions Dis- clusions just stated. The same tinction between. — It is said in conclusions were reached in Bowen v. Conner, 60 Mass. (6 Sunday v. Boon (MS.), cited in Cush.) 132, 135, that in our own Chap. V. § 325.] RESERVATIONS—" HEIRS.' 283 any person out of an estate conveyed in fee-simple, the same rigor of rule applies to the words "his heirs," or ' ' their heirs, " and they are as necessary in the creation of the reservation or exception as in creating a fee-sim- ple estate itself. If they are omitted, a life interest only vests. ^ No words of perpetuity will take their place. The same rule of interpretation applies to an exception out of a grant as to the deed itself, in respect to the limit- ation of the estate thereby created. If the whole fee is granted, and an exception he made to the grantor him- self, without words of inheritance, a life estate only is ex- cepted.^ Thus it is said in the case of Bean f. French ^ that it is the well-settled rule in deeds to an individual, that the word "heir" is necessary to create an estate of inheritance in the grantee, if he takes to his own use and not in trust.^ Sec. 325. " Heirs " cannot be supplied by any other word.. — Under the common-law rule the word "heirs" is necessary to create an estate of inheritance in the grantee. conveyancing this distinction is not so precisely observed, but a clause of reservation is con- strued to be an exception if that will best effect the intent of the parties. And so in the Enghsh cases, the term reser- vation is often very uncertain. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 47a ; Shep. Touch. 80. See : Thompson v. Gregory, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 81 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 255. It is said in Perkins v. Stockwell, 131 Mass. 529, 530, that whether a particular provision is in- tended to operate as an excep- tion or reservation is to be determined by its character, rather than by the particular words used. Stockwell w. CouiUard, 129 Mass. 231; Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290, 321 ; Ashcroft V. Eastern Railroad, 126 Mass. 196 ;s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 196; Shep. Touch. 80. ' Bean v. French, 140 Mass. 229, 231; Ashcroft V. Eastern Ark. Co., 126 Mass. 196, 199 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 672 ; Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591, 593; Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp. V. Chandler, 91 Mass. 159, 170 ; Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 457, 461 ; Kister v. Reiser (Pa.), 38 Leg. Int. 300; Shep. Touch. 100. ' Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 457, 461 ; Shep. Touch. 100. 2 140 Mass. 229, 231. ^ Sedgewick v. Laflin, 92 Mass. (10 Allen) 430 ; Buffum V. Hutchinson, 83 Mass. (1 Allen) 58. Eeservation by way of implied grant. — The same rule applies to a reservation which operates by way of an implied grant. See : Ashcroft v. Eastern Rail- road, 126 Mass. 196; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 672 ; Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp. v. Chandler, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 159 ; Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 457. 234 ' HEIRS " HAS NO EQUIVALENT. [Book III. ' where he takes in his own use and not in trust ; ^ other- wise the only estate that will pass will be an estate for ' GambrU v. Doe ex d. Ross, 8 Blaokf. (Ind.) 140 ; s.o. 44 Am. Dec. 760. See : Hogan v. Barry, 143 Mass. 538 ; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. 253 ; ■ Bean v. French, 140 Mass. 299 ; s.c. 3 N. E. Rep. 206 ; 1 New Eng. Rep. 313 ; Sedgewick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10 Allen) 430 ; BuflEum V. Hutchinson, 83 Mass. (1 Allen) 58 ; Cleveland v. Hallett, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 407 ; Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187 ; Rector «. Waugh, 17 Mo. IB ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 251 ; Leitensdorfer v. Delphy, 15 Mo. 160 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 187 ; Sisson V. DonneUy, 36 N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 434 ; Adams v. Boss, 80 N. J. L. (1 Vr.) 505 ; s.c. 82 Am. Dec. 237 ; Batchelor t'.Whitaker,88 N.C.850; Roberts v. Forsythe, 3 Dev. (N. C.)L. 26; Brown v. Nat. Bk. of Hamilton, 44 Ohio St. 269 ; s.c. 6 N. E. Rep. 648 ; 3 West. Rep. 601 ; Cromwell v. Winchester, 2 Head (Tenn.) 389 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 5. Compare : Baker v. Hunt, 40 111. 264; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 846; Wickersham v. Bills, 8 Ind. 387 ; Ross V. Adams, 28 N. J. L. (4 Dutch.) 160 ; Lemon v. Graham, 131 Pa. St. 447 ; s.c. 19 Atl. Rep. 48 ; 6 L. R. A. 663 ; 35 W. N. C. 839 ; 47 Leg. Int. 324 ; Cromwell v. Winchester, 3 Head (Tenn.) 889. littleton on the rule. — It is said by Lord Littleton that "these words ' his heires ' do not only extend to his immediate heires, but to his heires remote and most remote, born and to be bom, sub quibus vocabulis 'haeredibus suis' omnes hseredes, propinqui comprehenduntur, et remoti, nati et nascituri, and haeredum appellatione veniunt, hssredes hseredum. in infinitum. And the reason wherefore the law is so precise to prescribe cer- taine words to create an estate of inlieritance, is for avoiding of uncertainty, the mother of contention and confusion." See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) la, 8b ; Com. Dig., tit. " Estate," A. 3 ; 4 Cru. Dig., tit. 33, c. 31, c. 1 ; 3Prest. Est. 1, 2, 4, 5; 1 Shep. Touch. 101. niinois doctrine. — In Baker v. Hunt, 40 111. 264 ; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 346, it is said that the words "heirs, executors, and administrators," commonly used in the covenants of deeds, are surplusage in Illinois, as, under the statutes of that state, the heir is bound by all the de- mands against his ancestor, to the extent of the real estate in- herited. Indiana doctrine. — In Wickersham V. Bills, 8 Ind. 387, the court say that the word "heirs" is not necessary in Indiana for creating a fee-simple, where other words of inheritance, con- veying a fee-simple, are used, and the intention appears clear. New Jersey doctrine. — It seems that a fee may be passed in New Jersey without the use of ^ the words " heirs," if other lan- guage indicating a clear in- tention to include the line of inheritance be substituted therefor. Ross V. Adams, 38 N. J. L. (4 Dutch.) 160. Pennsylvania doctrine.— In the re- cent case of Lemon v. Graham, 131 Pa. St. 447; s.c. 19 Atl. Rep. 48 ; 6 L. R. A. 663 ; 35 W. N. C. 389 ; 47 Leg. Int. 334, it is said that the assignment under seal of all the grantor's "right, claim, interest, and property whatever in and to " a deed, on the back of which it is written, and which deed gives the grantor an estate in fee- simple, is sufficient to transfer the fee without the use of the word "heirs " or its equivalent. In Tennessee the common-law rule that without the use of the word heirs in deeds an estate for life only is granted, has been changed by statutory enact- ment. Chap. V. § 326.] "HEIRS" NECESSARY TO FEE-SIMPLE. 285 the life of the grantee. ^ The land must be conveyed to the grantor and "his heirs," and no words of perpetuity- will supply the omission of these necessary words of lim- itation.^ Thus a grant to a man to have and to hold to him forever, or to have and to hold to him and his as- signs forever, will convey only a life estate.^ The term "forever "is not equivalent to "his heirs or assigns,"* and will not impart inheritable qualities.^ Words which show an intention on the part of the grantor that the estate shall endure forever, will not convey more than a life estate, such as a grant to a man "and his genera- tion, to endure as long as the waters of the Delaware run ; " ® but if the necessary words of limitation are added, other words descriptive of the estate granted will be sur- plusage. Thus where the conveyance is to a man, "his heirs and assigns," "as long as wood grows and water runs," the instrument creates a fee-simple estate, the words "as long as wood grows and water runs" being treated as mere surplusage.'^ Sec. 326. Same— Must appear in operative part of deed.— Cromwell v. Winchester, 3 Head Handy v. McKim, 64 Md. 560; (Tenn.) 389. s.c. 4 Atl. Rep. 125 ; 3 Cent. • Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Rep. 704. Met.) 457, 461 ; « Curtis v. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Gould V. Lamb, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) Met.) 457, 461. 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187 ; Citing : Gould v. Lamb, 53 Mass. Young V. MarshaU, HiU & Den. (11 Met.) 86 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. (N. Y.) 93. 187 ; 2 Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Wright ■y. Dowley, 3 W. BL 1185 ; Met.) 457, 461. 3 Crabb on R. Prop., §§ 955, 966 ; Citing : Jackson i;. Mvers, 8 John. Litt., § 1. (N. Y.) 388 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. ■* Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591, 504 ; 593 ; Fray v. Packer, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) Sedgewick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10 17; Allen) 430; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 8b ; Buflfum v. Hutchinson, 83 Mass. 2 Prest. Est. 11, 13. (1 Allen) 58 ; Estate for life— Limitation over— Bowen v. Conner, 60 Mass. (6 " Heirs " necessary. — Where a Cush.) 133 ; deed created an estate for life Curtis v. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 in A, with limitation over to Met.) 457 ; such other person or persons as 3 Bl. Com. 107 ; would be entitled to take an es- 3 Prest. Est. 4. tate in fee by descent from A, ' Dennis v. Wilson,107 Mass.591,593. the word " heirs " is needful in « Foster v. Joice, 3 Wash. C. O. 498. ultimate limitation over to ' Arms v. Burt, 1 Vt. 303 ; s.c. 18 create fee-simple, and without Am. Dec. 680. it the rule in SheUey's Case See : Stevens v. Dewmg, 3 Vt. could not be applied. 411. 286 • HEIRS " IN OPERATIVE PART OF DEED. [Book III. The word "heirs," to carry an estate in fee, must ap- pear in the operative part of the deed. It need not ap- pear in the premises of the instrument or grant proper ; it being held sufficient if it appear in the habendum clause,^ the particular office of which is to define the amount of the estate taken by the grantor.^ While the habendum may enlarge the estate named in the prem- ises,^ yet the words in the habendum or the covenants cannot have the effect of enlarging an estate less than a fee thereto ; * neither will they serve to give the instru- ment the effect of a conveyance of the legal estate, where an equitable interest only is defined in the premises.^ But in the case of Saunders v. Hanes,'' where the deed contained no words of inheritance in the habendum, a restriction upon the grantee and his heirs was allowed to enlarge the estate into a fee.'' In Phillips v. Thomp- ' Pormal parts of a deed. — Tliere are eight formal or orderly parts of a deed of feoffment mentioned by Lord Coke, viz. : "1. The premises of the deed implied by Littleton ; 2. the habendum, whereof Littleton here speak- eth; 3. the tenendum, men- tioned by Littleton ; 4. the red- dendum ; 5. the clause of war- rantie ; 6. the in cujus rei tes- timonium, comprehending the sealing ; 7. the date of the deed, containing the day, the month, the yeare and stile of the king, or of the yeare of our Lord ; lastly, the clause of hiis testibus ; and yet all these pai-ta ■were contained in a very few and significant words, hseo fuit Candida illus setatis fides et simplicitas, quse pauculis lineis omnia fidei fixmamenta posue- runt." 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 6a. ' See : Lancaster Bank v. Myley, 13 Pa. St. 544. . ' Chaffee v. Dodge, 3 Root (Conn.) 205. * Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. 222 ; Den ex d. Roberts v. Forsythe, 3 Dev. (N. C.) L. 26 ; Sisson V. DoimeUy, 86 N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 432 ; Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.) 505 ; B.C. 83 Am. Dec. 237. ° Hastings v. Merriam, 117 Mass. 245, 252. See : Chapin v. First Universalist Soc. of Chicopoe, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 580. « 44 N. Y. 353, 359. ' Sestrictiou enlarges to a fee when, — The court say if the lease granted an inheritable estate, the words (his heirs and de- visee) were appropriate and had direct meaning and force. If not, they are without any signi- ficance. We are not to assume that they are used inadvertent- ly or without meaning. The word " heirs," as here iised, in- dicates that they were to take the estate, in case the lessee died possessed of it, and were limited by the restriction as the ancestor. The adoption of the word "heirs," in this connec- tion, is repugnant to the limit- ation of the estate for the life of the lessee, arising from the want or omission of that word in the habendum clause. It occurs in the premises, a part of the lease prior to this clause, and of the most considerable importance to the lessee. It is no more probable that the word was there included unadvised- ly, than that it was so omitted in the very next clause of the lease. In my opinion, this use of the word " heirs" is repug- nant to the construction assign- Chap. V. § 327.] " HEIRS " SUPPLIED BY REFERENCE. 287 son,^ where the -warranty and habendum clauses were run together, the court construed the deed as passing a fee ; and in Bridge v.Wellington,^ it is said that an instrument which contains no words of grant is sufficient to pass a fee, because the habendum and the covenants which fol- lowed clearly indicated that such was the intention of the grantor. Although the habendum in a deed in general refers to the premises, and declares the estate which the grantee shall hold in them, yet it may sometimes enlarge or diminish the grant, when it is so worded as to show a clear intention to do so ; ^ and it may qualify, ex- pound, or vary the estate given by the premises.* But where an estate for life only is mentioned in the premises and the habendum, this cannot be enlarged into a fee, either by a warranty in fee or by a covenant for quiet en- joyment to the grantee and his heirs, ^ even where the warranty is against the grantor, his heirs, executors, and assigns.^ Sec. 327. Same— Supplied by reference to other instru- ments.— The general rule is that the word ' ' heirs " is absolutely necessary to create a fee-simple ; ^ yet this word need not be contained in the deed where the estate is described by reference to another instrument, in pur- suance of which the deed is and professes on its face to be executed ; or where the estate is given to the grantee, ' ' as fully as it was granted in " a former deed, referring to it, where such instrument or deed referred to contains the word " heirs, "^ for in such a case the instrument conveying the estate borrows the words of limitation from the former instrument and conveys a fee.^ This ing to the lessee a life estate ^ Moss v. Sheldon, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) only, as claimed for the plaint- 160. iffs by reason of the omission ' Snell v. Young, 3 Ired. (N. C.) L. of that word in its appropriate 379 ; place." Register v. Rowell, 3 Jones (N. Saunders v. Hanes, 44 N. Y. 353, C.) L. 312. 359. « Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. 333. ' 73 N. C. 543. ' Cleveland v. Hallett, 60 Mass. (6 * 1 Mass. 319, 337, cited with ap- Cush.) 407 ; proval in Jamaica Pond Ague- Gould v. Lamb, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) duct Corp. V. Chandler, 91 Mass. 84 ; s.o. 45 Am. Dec. 187. (9 Allen) 159, 167. ^ Mercier v. Missouri, Ft. S. & G. R. 8 Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (30 Co., 54 Mo. 506. Pick.) 514. ' 3 Prest. Est. 2 ; Shep. Touch. 101. 288 EXCEPTIONS TO RULE. [Book III. rule, however, must be strictly applied,* and no intention, however clearly manifested, that the instrument referred to, even though it be a will, shall pass a fee, will do so unless such instrument contained words of inheritance.^ Sec. 328. Same— Exceptions to the rule.— To this general rule there are exceptions, as there are to all other general rules. ^ Thus if lands be given and granted to a trustee, whatever the formal words of the grant, he will be con- sidered as taking the legal title in those cases where it should be vested in him in order to enable him to execute the purposes of the will.^ And where land is given and In the case of Gould v. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 187, the court say that " if one recite that B hath en- feoffed him of white acre, to have and to hold to him and his heirs, and he doth grant the same to C, by this C, the grantee, takes a fee-simple of this acre. Shep. Touch. 101. So if a father enfeoflfs his son, to hold to him and his heirs, and the son re-enfeoffs the father as fully as the father en- feoffed him, an estate in fee- simple will pass. Co. Litt. 9 b; Cru. Dig., tit. 33, c. 24, sec.'S ; 2 Crabb on Eeal Prop., § 956. And undoubtedly a fee-simple may be created by other words of reference to deeds and in- struments without the use of the word ''heirs," where the intention appears clear." 'Eeaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 36 ; Lytle V. Lytle, 10 Watts (Pa.) 256. » Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 84, 86; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187, 188. ' Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10 Conn. 243; s.c. 26 Am. Dec. 390 393 ' Morton u' Barrett, 22 Me. 257; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 575, 578 ; Goodrich v. Proctor, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 567, 570 ; Gould V. Lamb, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 84, 86 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 187, 188; Purdie v. Whitney, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 25 ; Fisher v. Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.) 495; Bagshaw v. Spencer, 2 Atk. 577 ; Villiers v. ViUiers, 2 Atk. 73 ; Sanford v. Irby, 3 Barn. & Aid. 654 ; s.c. 5 Eng. C. L. 376 ; Houston r. Hughes, 6 Bam. & Cr. 403; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 188; Gates d. Markliam v. Cooke, 3 Burr. 1684, 1686 ; Murthwaite v. Jenkinson, 3 Barn. & Cr. 357 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 163; Doe V. Nioholls, 1 Barn. & Cr. 336 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C. L. 144 ; Shaw V. Wright, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 176; Horton v. Horton, 7 T. R. 652 ; Silvester v. Wilson, 2 T. R. 444 ; Wykliam «. Wykham, 18 Ves. 414; Gibson v. Montfort, 1 Ves. 485 : Biscoe V. Perkins, 1 Ves. & B. 489. In Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10 Conn. 343 ; s.c. 26 Am. Deo, 390, the court say that, "wherever an estate in fee is required, in order to satisfy the purpose of the trust, such an estate will pass without the word heirs. Tliis principle is fuUy asserted by Kent, C. J., in giving the opinion of the court in the case of Fisher v. Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.) 495. He says : ' A trust is merely what a use was, before the statute of uses. And in exercising its executory jurisdiction over trusts, the Court of Chancery is not bound by the technical rules of law, but takes a wider range in favor of the intent of the party.' And again, in his Com.mentaries, the same Chap. V. § 329.] EXCEPTIONS— DEEDS IN TRUST. 289 granted to a bishop, parson, or the hke, to have and to hold to him and his successors, this is a fee-simple ; ^ and where lands are given and granted to a corporation aggregate, without the word "successors," or any other word of inheritance, it will create a fee-simple estate.^ Sec. 329. Same — Same — Deeds in trust and equitable estates.— The first and most important class of exceptions to the general rule that the word heirs is essential in a deed to pass a fee, is where there is a conveyance in trust, in which case the trustee is held to take an estate as large as may be necessary for the purposes of the trust, whether the instrument of conveyance contain words of inheritance or not.^ The primary object of such a con- leamed jurist remarks : ' An assignment or conveyance of an interest in trust will carry a fee without words of limita- tion, where the intent is mani- fest.' See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 298. In Bagshaw v. Spen- cer, 2 Atk. .577, which was the case of a devise in trust, Lord Hakdwicke says : ' The devise to sell would have carried the fee, if the word heirs had not been mentioned.' And he further says, in Villiers v. ViUiers, 2 Atk. 72 : 'If land be given to a mein without the word heirs, and a trust be declared of that estate, and it can be satisfied by no other way but by the cestui que trust' staking an inlierit- ance, it has been construed that a fee passes to him." See : Gates d. Markham v. Cooke, 3 Burr. 1684, 1686; Shaw V. Wright, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 176; Gibson v. Montfort, 1 Ves. 485. i Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187. 2 Id. « See : Kom v. Cutler, 26 Conn. 4 ; Kirkland v. Cox, 94 111. 400 ; North V. Philbrook, 34 Me. 532 ; Farquharson v. Eichleberger, 15 Md. 63 ; Spessard v. Eohrer, 9 GUI. (Md.) 261; Attorney-General v. Proprietors' Meeting-house in Federal Street, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 1 ; 19 Cleveland v. HaUett, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 403 ; Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 84; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187; Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189, 190; Rosenbury, 12 Mich. Angell V. 241; Wilcox V. 488; Weller v. Wheeler, 47 N. H. Rolason, 7 N. J. Eq. (2 C. E. Gr.) 13 ; Fisher v. Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.) 495; Welcli V. Allen, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 147; Fox V. Phelps, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 437 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 86 N. C. 205; Nelson v. Lagow, 53 U. S. (12 How.) 98 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 909 ; Hardy v. Redman's Adm'r, 3 Cr. C. C. 635. Equitable estate — In North Car- olina the word ' ' heirs " is not necessaiy to the creation of an equitable estate in fee, if an in- tention to pass such an estate can be gathered from the in- strument. Holmes v. Holmes, 86 N. C. 205. Same — In Michigan the word "heirs" is not necessary to convey a fee in a conveyance in trust for the sale of land and the payment of debts from the proceeds, but the trustee may be held to take as large an es- 290 EXCEPTIONS— DEED TO CORPORATION. [BOOK III. struction manifestly is to uphold trusts so created, and to secure to the respective objects of them the benefits intended ; and to accomplish this purpose the trustee must have a legal estate co-extensive with the trusts. For this reason where it is the necessary implication that a fee was intended to be conveyed, this intent the law will carry into effect by holding the estate a fee.-' In the case of Weller v. Eolason,^ it is said that the word heirs is necessary to create an estate in fee in a common-law conveyance, and that the application of this principle is not affected by the circumstance that the conveyance is made in trust. Sec. 330. Same— Same— Deed to corporations.— The second exception to the general rule is where a conveyance is made to a corporation, in which case the word "succes- sors " takes the place of the word " heirs," and carries the fee.^ And if lands be granted to a corporation aggregate without the use of the word "successors," or other words of inheritance, it will pass the fee.* Sec. 331. Sam.e— Same— Deed to sovereign. — A third ex- ception to the general rule, that the word heirs is neces- sary in a deed of conveyance to carry the fee, is where the conveyance is made to a sovereign government ; it having been held by the United StS,tes Court of Claims that a grant to the government does not require the word heirs or other words of inheritance.^ Sec. 332. Same— Abrogation of rule by statute.- In many tate as may be necessary for Steams v. Palmer, 51 Mass. (10 the purposes of his trust, Met.) 33, 35 ; whether the conveyance con- Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189, tain word of inheritance or 190 ; not. Fisher v. Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.) Angell V. Rosenbury, 12 Mich. 495, 505 ; 241. Oates v. Cooke, 3 Burr. 1684 ; Compare : Weller v. Rolason, 7 Gibson v. Montfort, 1 Ves. Sr. N. J. Eq. (2 C. E. Gr.) 13. 485. ' Cleveland v. Hallett. 60 Mass. (6 ' 14 N. J. L. (2 J. S. Gr.) 13. Cush.) 403, 407 ; s See : Curtis v. Gardner, 54 Mass. Brooks V. Jones. 52 Mass. (11 (13 Met.) 457, 461. Met.) 191 ; * See : Gould v. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.187. Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. * Joseph v. United States, I Ct. of 187 ; CI. 197. Chap. V. § 333.] ■■ HEIRS " DEFINED. 291 of the states the general rule requiring the use of the word heirs in a deed of conveyance to carry the fee has been abrogated or so modified by statute that neither " heirs " nor any other technical word is required to convey or create an estate in fee-simple. Under these statutes all conveyances of lands are taken to be grants in fee- simple, unless the contrary intention is expressed in the instrument, or follows by necessary implication.^ Sec. 333. " Heirs "—Deflnition.— At common law the word "heir" means he upon whom the law casts the estate immediately on the death of the ancestor. ^ Ac- cording to modern usage the heir in law is simply one who succeeds to the estate of a deceased person.^ • It is said in the case of Bridge i\ Wellington, 1 Mass. 227, that where a deed contains no words of grant, Ijut from the terms of which it is manifest that the intention was to gi-ant an es- tate, and it contains a haben- dum to one and his heirs, passes a fee-simple. ' BaUey v. Bailey, 25 Mich. 188 ; 2 Bl. Com. 201. ' Castro V. Tennent, 44 Cal. 253 ; McKinney v. Stewart, 5 Kan. 384; Lavery v. Egan, 143 Mass. 389 ; B.C. 9 N. E. Rep. 747 ; 3 New Eng. Rep. 441 ; The word "heirs" is nomen opera- tivTim. See : Derm v. GUlot, 2 T. R. 431, 435 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 516. As to when " male heirs " are nomen coUectiTnm, including all the heirs in succession. See : BrowneU v. Brownell, 10 R. I. 509. "Heir" means one to whom .an estate has descended from his immediate ancestor. A per- son is the " heir" of one from whom he has inherited through several successive descents. Castro V. Tennent, 44 Gal. 253. Same — Has several meanings. — The term "heir" has several significations. Sometimes it refers to one who has formally accepted a succession, and taken possession thereof ; some- times to one who is called to succeed, but still retains the faculty of accepting or renounc- ing, and it is frequently used as appUed to one who has form- ally renounced. Mumford v. Bowman, 26 La. Ann. 413. Same — Equivalent to "distributee." — In any instrument the word "heir" is to be taken as equivalent to "distributee"; unless a different intention is apparent. Sweet V. Dutton, 109 Mass. 589 ; s.c. 12 Am. Rep. 744. Heir in law is simply one who succeeds to the estate of a de- ceased person, the wife is an heir of her deceased husband, and when her deceased son has no wife, child, or father, she is his heir. McKinney v. Stewart, 5 Kans. 384. A "widow" is an heir in a spe- cial limited sense only. TJnfried v. Heberer, 63 Ind. 72 ; Rusing V. Rasing, 25 Ind. 63 ; Clark V. Scott, 67 Pa. St. 452, 453. A hushand is neither the heir nor next of Mn of his wife, not in a technical sense. Ivins' Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 184 ; s.c. 51 Am. Rep. 516. But in Eby's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 241, where an administrator gave money to the heirs of his daughters, and one of them died without issue, it was held that the husband might take, as ta- tended by the word heir. • HEIRS " WORD OF LIMITATION. [Book III. Only where there is a plain demonstration in a deed that the word heirs was used in another than its strict legal sense will any other construction be given it.-"^ Sec. 334:. Same— Word of limitation, not of purchase. — The word heirs must be deemed, ordinarily, a word of hmitation and not a word of purchase, as the equivalent of children, 2 and will be construed to limit or define the estate* intended to be conveyed.^ The words "heirs of the body, " in a deed, are words of limitation and not of purchase.* It has been held that the word " heirs now living," where used in a deed, are words of limitation or purchase, as will best accord with the manifest intention of him who employs them.^ Sec. 335. Same— Construed " children "when.— The word "heirs," which is deemed, ordinarily, a word of limit- ation and not of purchase, is the equivalent of "chil- dren."® Where in a deed the words "children" and 1 Rivard v. Gisenhof , 35 Hun (N. Y.) 247. «, See : McCuUough v. GUddon, 33 Ala. 208 ; Couch V. Anderson, 26 Ala. 676; Knowlden v. Leavitt, 121 Mass. 307; Rivard v. Gisenhof, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 247 ; Brant v. Gelston, 2 John. Cas. (N. Y.) 384. In grantee's covenant. — The word "heirs" is used as a word of limitation only in a grantee's covenant with P " and his heirs," that he would, upon the request of P, " his heirs, execu- tors, administrators, or as- signs," convey the land to P " and his heirs," or to such persons as "he or they" should nominate, and secures to P an equitable estate in fee- simple, which he may devise. Knowlden v. Leavitt, 121 Mass. 307. In deed to a dead man. — The word " heirs " being a word of purchase, only limiting and de- fining what estate passes to the grantee, a deed to a dead man and his heirs is a nullity. Hunter v. Watson, 12 Gal. 363 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 543. ^ Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 505 ; s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 765. " Brant v. Gelston, 2 John. Cas. (N. Y.) 384. But in the case of Sharman v. Jackson, 30 Ga. 234, in a gift of chattels to be equal- ly divided among the heirs of the body of the tenant for life, the words "heirs of the body " were held not to create an estate-tail, being words of purchase. 5 Ware v. Richardson; 3 Md. 505 ; s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 762. « Twelves v. Nevill, 39 Ala. 175 ; Brown v. Ransey, 74 Ga. 210; Tucker v. Tucker, 78 Ky. 503 ; Seev. Derr, 57 Mich. 369; s.c. 34 N.W. Rep. 108 ; Rivard v. Gisenhof, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 247 ; Grimes v, Orrand, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 298. " Heirs " means children if so intended. Brown v. Ransey, 74 Ga. 210. When "lieirs" not synonymous with " children "or " issue." See : Sewall v. Roberts, 115 Mass. 363. Chap. V. s^g 336, 337.] HEIRS WHEN ASCERTAINED. 293 *' heirs " are used indiscriminately, in order to harmonize the parts of the deed, the word " children " will be sub- stituted for the word " heirs " in the habendum.^ When the word heirs is used in reference to a living person as the ancestor, it means in the popular sense children who are heirs apparent.^ Sec. 336. Same— "WTien to be ascertained.— Where land is conveyed to the " heirs " of a person living at the time of its execution, the delivery of the title vests in those persons who would be the heirs if the person should then die.* And where a person gives land to the use of another for his life, and in case that person died without ""children," then to "his own right heirs," in the event of such death the heirs of the grantor are to be ascer- tained at the donor's and not at the donee's death.^ Sec. 337. Same— " Present heirs."— The words "present heirs," used in a deed of land to a trustee for a person "and her present heirs," makes such person and the children that she then has tenants in common in the estate.^ The grant in a deed to a woman and her " chil- dren and their heirs and assigns forever " vests the title Wlien in a deed to A and the the grantor's wife and heirs, " heirs " of B, their children -where it is clearly shown that and assigns, "heirs of B" the word " heirs " is used as a means B's children. synonym of children, the deed Tucker v. Tucker, 78 Ky. 503. will be held to convey a bene- " Heirs " — In deed — Heans " cMl- ficial interest to the children dren " when in a deed to during the hf e of the mother, A and the " heirs " of B, their with the remainder at her death, children and assigns, "heirs" Twelves v. NeviU, 39 Ala. 175. of B means B's children. "Heirs"— ffieans "children " When. Tucker u. Tucker, 78 Ky. 503. —The word "heirs" may "Heirs" —Equivalent to " chil- mean "children"; so held dren."— Where a person con- where an improvident person veyed certain lands by deed to deeded land to his brother, to "the heirs" of a father who be immediately deeded by the was alive at the time, it was latter to the wife and " heu:s ' held that the word "heirs" of the former, should not be taken in its tech- See v. Derr, 57 Mich. 369 ; s.c. 24 nical signification, but to mean N. W. Rep. 108. "children"; and that the deed ' Warn •«. Brown, 103 Pa. St. 347. takes eflEect at once as a present = Feltman v. Butts, 8 Bush (Ky.) 115. gift » Heath c. Hewitt, 49 Hun (N. Y.) Grimes v. Orrand, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 12 ; s.c. 17 N. Y. S. R. 270. 298 * Harris v. McLaran, 30 Miss. 533. " Heirs " — In deed of gift — Con- ' Chess-Charlye Co. v. PurteU, 74 stmction.— In deed of gift to Ga. 467. 294 BODILY HEIRS. [Book III. of the land in the grantee and her cjiildren then in being, though unborn ; but those begotten and born thereafter take nothing thereof.^ Sec. 338. Same—" Bodily heirs " or " heirs of the body."— The words "bodily heirs " or "heirs of the body," in a deed of land, may be construed as words of purchase whenever there is anything in the instrument which shows that they were used to designate certain persons answering the description of heirs at the death of the party.^ When used in a deed of lands made by a father to a daughter, they will carry a fee, in the absence of anything in the deed to show that the words were used in a sense different from their technical import.^ ' King V. Eea, 56 Ind. 1. estate intended to be conveyed. « Williams v. Allen, 17 Ga. 81. Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 505 ; The phrase " heirs of the body," g.c. 56 Am. Dec. 763. when used in a deed, will be ' True v. Nicholls, 3 Duv. (Ky.) construed to limit or define the 547. CHAPTEE VI. CaiEATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEVISE. Sec. 339. Introductory. Sec. 340. Statute of uses — Effect of its passage. Sec. 341. Same — Adopted in this country. Sec. 343. Same — Rules of construction — Evading the statute. Sec. 348. Same — Same — American rules of construction. Sec. 344. Statute of wills — Effect on power to devise lands. Sec. 345. Devise of land carries fee when — Common-law doctrine. Sec. 346. Same — Doctrine in American courts. Sec. 347. Same — Precatory devise. Sec. 348. Same — Rule for interpretation of deeds not applicable. Sec. 349. Same — Words of limitation. Sec. 350. Same — "Heirs" not necessary to pass fee. Sec. 351. Same — ^What words carry fee Sec. 352. Same — "Estate'' is genus generalissimum. Sec. 353. Same — What passes fee in reversion Sec. 354. Same — ^When fee vests. Sec. 355. Same — ^Words of survivorship in wills — Doctrine of early English cases. Sec. 356. Same — Same — Doctrine of later Englisli cases. Sec. 357. Same — Same — Doctrine of the American cases. Sec. 358. Same — ^Limited remainder — Vesting of. Sec. 359. Same — Devise with power — Carries fee when. Sec. 360. Same — Same — When fee does not pass. Sec. 361. Same — Same — Same — Reason for the rule. Sec. 362. Same — Devise with limitation over — Contingent fee. Sec. 363. Same — Same — Limitation over void for uncertainty. Sec. 364. Same — Same — Same — Fee in first taker. Sec. 365. Same — Devise to a person and his children. Sec. 368. Same— Same— What children included. Sec. 367. Same — Residuary clause carries fee when. Section 339. introductory.— The power of alienating lands by will was of ancient origin. Its beginnings are lost in the uncertainties of early antiquity. It existed among the Saxons, but was swept away by the new order of things when William the Conqueror set up the feudal 295 296 STATUTE OF USES— EFFECTS OF. [Book III. system in England.^ When the modification of the feudal system of laws and life and the amelioration of their rigor and severity set in, and partial liberty in re- gard to person and property was re-established, the power of alienating lands and creating a fee-simple estate by devise came into vogue a;nd general use much later than the accomplishment of the same thing by deed. The reasons for this have been heretofore adverted to,^ and will be hereafter fully discussed when we come to treat of uses and devises. Suffice it at the present time to say that at common law a fee-simple con- ferred no power to devise by will.^ But by local custom in some of the ancient boroughs^ as in the city of Lon- don, a man might devise by testament his lands and tenements, which he held in fee-simple within the borough at the time of his death ; and by the force of such devise, "he to whom such devise was made, after the death of the devisor, might enter into the tenement so to him devised, to have and to hold to him after the form and effect of the devise without any livery of seisin thereof to be made to him."* The custom, however, never extended to a remainder or a reversion in expect- ancy upon a fee-tail, because, by the common law, there could be no such remainder or reversion ; and the statute De Bonis, though it made such remainders and rever- sions capable of existence, did not enlarge the extent of the custom.^ Sec. 340. Statute of uses— Eflfect of its passage.— In Eng- land, prior to the passage of the statute of uses,® a large portion of the land was held to uses, the legal title being in one person, upon the trust and confidence that he would apply it to the use of some other person. The effect of the statute of uses was to destroy these large trust estates, and to transfer them to the cestui que use, the same as if the seisin or estate of the feoffee, together ^ See: Ante, ^191, et seq. alien.— Lands in the city of ' See : Ante, % 314. London might be divested by ^ See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 111b. the owner, although he was not ■> 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) Ilia ; a citizen. Dyer, 255a, pi. 3. Litt., § 167 ; "4 Com. Dig. 119. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 9; « Stats. 37 Hen, VHL, c. 10. Devise of lauds in London by Chap. VI. § 341.] STATUTE OF USES— ADOPTION. 297 with the use had uno flatu, passed from the feoffor to the cestui que use. By uniting the seisin to the use in the person who was entitled to the use, this statute had the effect to defeat the customary mode of making devises in the way of uses.^ This, of course, had a marked effect upon the tenures of the realm. Interest in land which had heretofore been merely equitable and cognizable only according to the rules of equity became at once legal and cognizable in courts of common law ; and many persons who were seized of estates to uses ceased at once to have any title either at law or in equity. Sec. 341. Same— Adopted in this country.— The doctrine of uses and trusts introduced into the English law by the statute of Henry VIII. has been adopted into the juris- prudence of nearly every state in the Union, either as a part of the common law of the state or by re-enactment,^ and as a consequence the doctrines established by the English courts are so interwoven with the history and judicial decisions of every American state, and the growth of our jurisprudence in regard to real estate, that the " See : 4 'Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 243-246. ' See : Horton v. Sledge, 29 Ala. 478, 490 ; Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474, 483; Adams v. Guerax-d, 29 Ga. 651 ; s.c. 76 Am. Dec. 624 ; Blake v. Colins, 69 Me. 156 ; Eichardson v. Stodder, 100 Mass. 528; Chanery v. Stevens, 97 Mass. 77, 85; Johnson v. Johnson, 89 Mass. (7 AUen) 196 ; Marshall v. Fish, 6 Mass. 31 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 76 ; Ready v. Kearsley, 14 Mich. 215 * Rollins V. Riley, 44 N. H. 1 ; French v. French, 3 N. H. 239 ; Exter V. Odiorne, 1 N. H. 237 ; Chamberlain v. Crane, 1 N. H. 64; Vander Volgen v. Yates, 9 N. Y. 219 ; s.c. 8 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 242; Sprague v. Spragne, 13 R. I. 701; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I. 115, 132 ; Howard v. Henderson, 18 S. C. 184; Hooberry v. Haxding, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 392. In New York, the statute of uses has been abolished by legis- lative enactment. See : 4 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (8th ed.) 2436, § 45 ; 3 N. Y. Stats. Codes & L. 3176, § 1. In Ohio, it is thought, the statute of uses Tvas never in force. See : Helfenstine v. Garrard, 7 Ohio 275 ; Thompson v. Gibson, 2 Ohio 439. In Vermont the statute is not in force. See : Sherman v. Dodge, 28 Vt. 26; Gorman v. Daniels. 23 Vt. 600, disapproving Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Hartland, 2 Paine C. C. 536. In Virginia the statute of uses was a part of the colonial law, but was superseded by the Re- vised Statutes of 1793. 298 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. [Book III. law of tenures, as interpreted and applied in American courts, is largely governed and controlled by the English precedents established under the statute of uses.^ Sec. 342. Same — Rules of construction — Evading the statute.— The manifest object of the statute of uses, as declared in the English statute of Henry VIII. , was to destroy uses and trusts altogether ; yet the courts have refused to carry out that intention on various grounds. The convenience of being able to keep the legal title of the estate in one person, while the beneficial interest should be in another, was too great to be given up alto- gether ; consequently English courts of equity found, and continue still to find, reasons to withdraw certain con- veyances from the operation of the statute. Sec. 343. Same— Same. — American rules of construction. — The American courts of law and equity, in construing the statute of uses, have adopted three general rules, under which conveyances are excepted from its operation. The first is where a use has been limited upon a use ; the second is where a copyhold or leasehold estate or personal property has been limited to uses ; and the third is where such powers or duties have been imposed with the estate upon the donee to uses as to render it necessary that he should continue to hold the legal title in order to perform his duty or execute the power. ^ According to the first rule of construction where a use is limited upon a use the statute executes only the first and the second remains a mere equitable interest.^ The second rule of construction 1 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 299-301. Hutchins v.Heywood,50 N.H.496; 2 1 HiU on Trustees, § 230 ; Cueman v. Broadnax, 37 N. J. L. 1 Perry on Trusts (4th ed.), § 300. (8 Vr.) 508 ; See : KeUogg v. Hale,108 111.164 ; Ramsey v. March, 2 McC. (S. C.) Preachers' Aid Society v. Eng- L. 252 ; s.c. 13 Am. Deo. 717 ; land, 106 111. 129 ; "Wilson v. Cheshire, 1 McC. (S. C.) Farr v. Gilreath, 33 S. C. 511 ; L. 233 ; Howard v. Henderson, 18 S. C. Coxall v. Sherrerd, 73 U. S. (5 189 ; Wall.) 268 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 573 ; Hooberry v. Harding, 10 Lea Durant v. Ritchie, 4 Mas. C. C. (Tenn.) 892 ; 45, 65 : Henderson v. HUl, 9 Lea (Tenn.) Hurst's Lessee v. McNeil, 1 Wash. 25. C. C. 70 ; ' See : Reid v. Gordon, 35 Md. 183 ; Doe ex d. Lloyd v. Passingham, Matthews v. Ward, 10 GUI. & J. 6 Barn. & C. 305 ; s.c. 13 Eng. (Md.) 443 ; C. L. 146. Chap. VI. § 343.] AMERICAN RULES. 299 affects only freeholds ; leaseholds and chattels, interests in land and personal property given to uses, are not affected, and the use remains unexecuted as before, the statute.^ The third rule of construction is less technical, but of much more importance in this country, than the two preceding. According to it, where powers or duties are imposed upon a donee to uses which make it necessary that he should continue to hold the legal title in order to perform the duty imposed, or execute the power con- ferred, the trust is held to be a special or active trust unexecuted by the statute.^ Consequently, where an active duty or power is imposed on the trustee, by the limitation to him and his heirs, either to pay rents ; ^ to The English rnle is the same. See : Burgess v. Wheats, 1 W. Bl. 161 ; Tyrrel's Case, Dyer 155a ; Williams v. Waters, 14 Mees. & W. 166 ; . Wlietstone v. Saintsbury, 2 Pr. Wms. 146. ' See : Pryon v. Mood, 3 McMull. (S. C.) L. 393 ; Joar V. Hodge, 1 Spears (S. C.) L. 593 ; Rice V. Burnett, 1 Spears (S. C.) Eq. 579 ; The English decisions lay down the same rule. See : Doe v. Routledge, 2 Cowp. 709; Symson v. Turner, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 383. 'See: Morton v. Barrett, 33 Me. 357 ; B.C. 39 Am. Deo. 575 ; Chapin v. Universalist Soc, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 580 ; Norton v. Leonard, 39 Mass. (13 Pick.) 152 ; Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189, 190; Exter V. Odiome, 1 N. H. 333 ; Wood ■;;. Wood, 5 Paige Ch. (N Y.) 596 ; s.c. 38 Am. Deo. 451 ; Striker v. Mott, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.)387 i s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 646. The English courts foUow the same rule. See : Sandford v. Irby, 3 Barn. & Aid. 654 ; s.o. 5 Eng. C. L. 376; Houston V. Hughes, 6 Barn. & C. 403 ; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 188 ; Murthwalte v. Jenkinson, 3 Barn. & C. 357'; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 162; Doe V. NichoUs, 1 Bam. & C. 357 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 144 ; Tenny v. Moody, 3 Bing. 3 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 13 ; Harton v. Harton, 7 T. R. 653 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 537 ; Silvester ex d. Law v. Wilson, 3 T. R. 444; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 519; Wykham v. Wykham, 18 Ves. 414; Mott V. Buxton, 7 Ves. 201 ; Biscoe V. Perkins, 1 Ves. & B. 489. s Meacham v. Steele, 93 111. 135 ; Morton v. Barrett, 32 Me. 257; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 575 ; Hutchinsv. Haywood, 50 N. H. 500; Adams v. Perry, 43 N. Y. 487; Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303 : Leggett V. Perkins, 3 N. Y. 297 ; Brewster v. Striker, 3N. Y. 19; McCosker v. Brady, 1 Barb. Cli. (N. Y.) 339 ; Deibert's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 296 ; Ogden's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 501; Wickham v. Berry, 53 Pa. St. 70; Shankland's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 113; Barnett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 393 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 513 ; Doe d. Gratrex v. Hompray, 6 Ad. & El. 306 ; s.c. 33 Eng. C. L. 137 ; White V. Barker, 1 Bing. N. C. 573 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 767 ; Kenrick v. Beauclerck, 3 Bos. & P. 178 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 746 ; Anthony v. Rees, 3 Cromp. & J. 7^: 300 EFFECT OF STATUTE OF WILLS. [Book ni. apply rents to the maintenance of the beneficiary ; ^ to invest the proceeds or principal and apply the accumula- tion of the estate ; ^ to sell the estate,^ or to mortgage it for the payment of debts^ legacies, or annuities, or to purchase other lands for particular uses ; * to accumulate out of the estate a sum for a prescribed purpose ; ® to preserve contingent remainders ; ® to protect the estate for a given time, such as until division, or the death of the specified person," — the operation of the statute will be excluded. Sec. 344. Statute of wills— Effect on power to devise lands. — The statute of wills ^ enabled tenants in fee-simple generally to devise the whole of their lands held by tenure in socage, and two-thirds of their lands held by tenure in knight-service ; with certain disabilities affecting the tenants of the king in capite, holding by knight-service ut de corona ; that is, directly of the king through the Eobinson v. Grey, 9 East 1 ; Jones V. Say, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 383; Barker v. Greenwood, 4 Mees. & W. 429; Nevil V. Saunders, 1 Yern. 415 ; Garth v. Baldwin, 2 Ves. Sr. 646. • Vail V. Vail, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 317; Gerard Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 46 Pa. St. 485 ; Porter v. Doby, 2 Eich. (S. C.) Eq. 49, 52 ; Doe d. SheUey v. EdUn, 4 Ad. & El. 582; s.o. 31 Eng. C. L. 261; Tenney v. Moody, 3 Bing. 3 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 12 ; Shapland v. Smith, 1 Bro. C. C. 75; Doe V. Ironmonger, 3 East 533. Silvester ex d. Law v. Wilson, 2 T. R. 444 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 519. » Exter V. Odiorne, 19 N. H. 233 ; Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 19; Ashhurst v. Given, 5 Watts & S. rPa ) 323 ■ Nickell V. ' Handley, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 336. 8 Wood V. Mather, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 478; Bagshaw v. Spencer, 1 Yes. Sr. 143. ■• See : Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10 Conn. 243 ; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 390 ; Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts & S. (Pa) 19; Doe d. Cadogan v. Ewart, 7 Ad. & El. 636; s.o. 34 Eng. C. L. 337 ; Spenoe v. Spence, 13 C. B. N. S. 199 ; s.c. 104 Eng. C. L. 198 ; Smith V. Smith, 11 C. B. N. S. 121 ; s.c. 103 Eng. C. L. 119 ; Curtis V. Price, 12 Ves. 89 ; s.c. 8 Rev. Rep. 303 ; Bagshaw v. Spencer, 1 Ves. Sr. 143. 5 Wright V. Pierson, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 110 ; Stanley v. Leonard, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 87. ^ Vanderheyden v. CrandaU, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 9 ; Barker v. Greenswood, 4 Mees. & W. 431 ; Biscoe V. Perkins, 1 Ves. & B. 485. '■ Williams v. McConico, 36 Ala.33 Nelson v. Davis, 35 Ind. 474 ; Morton v. Barrett, 22 Me. 357 s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 575 ; Pasey v. Cook, 1 HUl (S. C.) 413 McNish V. Guerard, 4 Strobh. (S, C.) Eq. 66. 8 Stat. 33 Hen. VIII., c. 1 ; explain- ed and amended by 34 & 35 Hen. VIII., c. 5. Chap. VI. § 345.] DEVISE CARRIES FEE. 301 king's grant, and not mediately through an honor com- ing to the king's hands by forfeiture or escheat.^ The provisions of this statute, which are exceedingly prolix, are thus summarized by Lord Coke : "These statutes take not away the custome to devise whereof Littleton ^ speaketh ; for though lands devisable by custome be holden by knight's service, yet may the owner devise the whole land by force of the custome, and that shall stand good against the heire for the whole. But the devise of lands holden by knight's service by force of the statutes is utterly void for a third, and the same [the third part] shall descend to the heire. If he hath any lands holden by knight's service in capite [that is, ut de corona], and lands in socage, he can devise but two parts of the whole ; but if he hold lands by knight's service of the king, and not in capite [that is, ut de honore], or of a mesne lord, and hath also lands in socage, he may devise two parts of his lands holden by knight's service, and all his socage lands. If he holds any land of the king in capite, and by act executed in his lifetime he con- veyeth any part of his lands to the use of his wife or of his children, or payment of his debts, though it be with power of revocation, he can devise by his will no more, but to make up the land so conveyed [to] two parts of the whole. And if the lands so conveyed amount to two parts or more, then he can devise nothing by his will. But if he hath land onely that is holden in socage, then he may devise by his will all his socage land." * Sec. 345. Devise of land carries fee when— Common-law doctrine.— At common law a much more liberal practice existed in the creation of estates in fee-simple by devise than by deed. The general rule of the common law, that words of inheritance or perpetuity are necessary to create, a fee is recognized by Justice Story in an early case,^ where it can be carried into effect without a viola- ' See • 4 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d this rule has been considerably ed.)248, etseq. modified by the well-known •> Litt S 167. rule for the construction of 8 1 Co.' Litt. (19th ed.) Ulb. wills, by which it is required ^ See • Wright v. Denn ex d. Page, that the intent of the testator 23 U S (10 Wheat.) 204, 333 ; be allowed to control. bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310-319 ; but 302 AMERICAN DOCTRINE. [Book III. tion of the rules of law/ and it is clear and manifest from the words and expressions of the will that there was an intention to supply the legal and technical terms which carry a fee.^ This intention of the testator, however, must appear from the words of the will itself, and not from conjecture.^ While it is a well-settled rule that no evidence outside of the will itself can be given to show what estate the testator intended the devisee should take, yet where the will refers to another right, the court will examine such other right and construe the will in connection with it.* Sec. 346. Same— Doctrine in American courts.— It is said in Smith v. Berry,^ that a review of all the authorities, English and American, would show that the latter have gone much farther than the former in giving effect to the intention of the testator, and for a very good reason. In America the law of primogeniture is universally The first great rule of exposition of wills, to which all rules must bend, is that the intent of the testator shall prevail pro- vided it be consistent vrith the rules of law. See : Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. 539, 533. Chief Justice Marshall says of this rule that " it's the polar star to guide us in the con- struction of wills." Smith V. Bell, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 68, 75, 84 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 322, 325, 838. The intention of the testator can- not prevail against a positive rule of law, however, such as the rule in Shelley's Case, un- less it clearly appears that the word ' ' heirs " was used by the testator in a sense different from the technical meanipg assigned to it by law. Allen V. Craft. 109 Ind. 476 ; s.c. 58 Am. Rep. 435 ; 9 N. E. Rep. 919 ; 7 West. Rep. 516. Same — Prevails when. — If from the whole of the will, taken together and applied to the subject-matter, it can be col- lected that the testator intend- ed to give a fee, it ought to be so construed, in order to give effect to such intention. See : Denn v. Gaskin, 2 Cowp. 657; Loveacres v. Blight, 1 Cowp. 852; Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 299 ; Roe V. Blackett, 1 Cowp. 235 ; Right ■u.Sidebotham, 2 Doug. 759. ' Proprietors of Battle Sq. Church V. Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 142; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 725. See : Post, § 368. Stitutes have been passed in many of tlie states of the Union for the better effecting of the will of a testator, which have done little more than change the presumption as to what estate is intended by a devise without words of inheritance. Consult : 1 Stimson on Stats., passim. 2 Busby V. Busby, 1 U. S. (1 Dall.) 236 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 111. 2 Construction of wills — Growth of doc- trine.— As to growth of the doctrine of the construction* of wills, See : Clayton v. Clayton, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 476 ; French v. Mcllhenny, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 13 ; Steele v. Thompson, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 84. * Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Bab- cock, 12 John. (N. y.) 389. ^ 8 Ohio 366, 868. Chap. VI. §§ 347, 348.] PRECATORY DEVISE. 303 abolished, real and personal property are placed more nearly on a footing with each other, and the heir is no longer a favorite with the courts. The necessity of naming the heirs of the donee, in order to pass the inher- itance, was unknown to the Eoman law. It was unknown even in England before the Norman Conquest, when the introduction of fiefs first gave rise to the practice. The necessity for naming the heirs originated at a subsequent period, where the rulers of Gothic dynasties granted lands under condition of military service. These grants were sometimes made to the feudatory for life, and sometimes to his heirs. Whenever they were not spe- cially named, the grant was only construed to be for life. Although this state of things in Great- Britain has long since passed away, yet it has influenced, more or less, the interpretation even of devises. In America we have always been relieved from this artificial system, and from all the consequences which have followed in its train. • Sec. 347. Same— Precatory devise.— In a will, by emploj^- ing the words " I wish the county in which I die and am buried to have and enjoy, for the benefit of public schools, two- thirds of the land in the county I am buried in," taken in connection with the words " my land" and " the land I own," used in other parts of the will, show an intention on the part of the testator to devise an estate in lands, and there being no words limiting its quantity, will be held to convey an estate in fee-simple.^ Sec. 348. Same— Eules for interpretation of deeds not ap- plieatale.— The artificial rules for the interpretation of deeds, contracts, and other deliberate instruments are not applicable to the construction of wills. They never have been so considered at any period of the law. On the con- trary, many constructions have been given to words in a will in order to effectuate the manifest intention of the testator, which would not have been permitted in a deed ; and the same words have received different construc- See : Bell Co. v. Alexander, 33 Tex. 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 368. 30i WORDS OF LIMITATION. [BOOK m. tions in different wills. ^ In ancient times, if a man de- vised lands to another in perpetuum, or to give and sell, or in feodo simplici, or to him and his assigns forever ; in those cases a fee-simple passed by the intent of the devisor.^ Yet these words would not have been suffi- cient in deeds. In modern times, words not appropriated to real estate, such as property, interest, effects, and even legacy, have been adjudged sufficient to pass a fee.^ Sec. 349. Same— Words of limitation.— The rule of law is that where, in a devise of real estate, there are no words of limitation superadded to the general words of bequest, nothing passes but an estate for life ; * but since, in most cases, this rule goes to defeat the probable intention of the testator, who, in general, is unacquainted with technical phrases, and is presumed to mean to make a disposition of his whole interest, unless he uses words of limitation, courts, to effectuate this intention, will lay hold of gen- eral expressions in the will, which, from their legal im- port, comprehend the whole interest of the testator in the thing devised. But if other words be used, restraining the meaning of the general expressions in the will, which, from their legal import, comprehend the whole interest or not, the rule of law which favors the right of the heir must prevail.^ Justice Story says that "where there are no words of limitation to a devise, the general rule of law is, that the devisee takes an estate for life only, un- less, from the language there used, or from other parts of the will, there is a plain intention to give a larger estate. We say a plain intention, because, if it be doubt- 1 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 204a. in the case of Jenkins v. See : Hogan v, Jackson, 1 Cowp. Clement. Harper's (S. C.) Eq. 399. 73; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 703, « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 96a. decided in 1834, the Court 3 Harper v. Blean, 3 Watts (Pa.) of Pleas in Equity, in the con- 471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 267, 368. struction of the clause, held •• See : Peyton v. Smith, 1 McC. (S. that a devise without words of C.) L. 476 : sc. 11 Am. Dec. 758. perpetuity or inheritance passed Devise without words of perpe- a fee. tuity. — In HaU v. Goodwm, 3 See : Wright v. Denn ex d. Page, Nott. & McC. (S. C.) L. 383, 23 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 228 ; decided in May, 1830, the con- bk. 6 L. ed. 803, 309 ; stitutional court held that a Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7 U. devise of land without words S. (3 Cr.) 97, 130 ; bk. 3 L. ed. of inheritance or perpetuity 377, 388. vested only a life estate ; and Chap. VI. § 350.] HEIRS NOT NECESSARY IN DEVISE. 305 ful or conjectural upon the terms of the will, or if full legal effect can be given to the language without such an estate, the general rule prevails. It is not sufficient that the court may entertain a private belief that the testator intended a fee ; it must see that he has expressed that intention with reasonable certainty on the face of the will. For the law will not suffer the heir to be disin- herited upon conjecture. He is favored by its policy ; and though the testator may disinherit him, yet the law will execute that intention only when it is put in a clear and unambiguous shape." ^ Sec. 350. Same — " Heirs " not necessary to pass fee. — The general rule of law in this country is that, in a will, the word "heirs," or other express word or words of inher- itance, is not necessary to create an estate of inheritance in the devisee ; but if by the terms of the devisee, ex- pounded with reference to all the other provisions in the will, it appears affirmatively that it was the intent of the testator to give an estate in fee-simple, the devise will be so construed as to pass such an estate.^ Though if such > Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 23 Brown v. "W'ood, 17 Mass. 73 ; U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 227, 228 ; Wier v. Michigan Stove Co., 44 bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 309, 310. Mich. 506 ; s.o. 7 N. W. Rep. 2 Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. 78 ; (18 Pick.) 537, 539 : Tatum v. McLellan, 50 Miss. 1 ; • Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12 Fogg v. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ; Pick.) 27. Newkerk v. Newkerk, 2 Cai. (N. See : Markiuie v. Ragland, 77 lU. Y.) 345 ; 93 . Jackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel, SiUard v. Robinson, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 17 John. (N. Y.) 281 ; 415 . Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Lindsay u McCormack^ 2 A. K. Y.) 185, 189; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. Marsh. (Ky.) 229 ; 213 ; „ , „ -o- ^ x Sears v Cunningham. 122 Mass. Morrison v. Semple, 6 Bmn. (Pa.) 538; 94; Crossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170, Waterman •y.Greene, 12 R.I. 483 ; 1^2 • Jenkins v. Clement, 1 Harp. (b. Lyonw. Marsh, 116 Mass. 232 ; C.) Eq. 72 ; ,„ „ . , Spooneru. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. Davis v. Bawcum, 10 Heisk. 529 532 • (Tenn.) 406 ; Lincoln v. Lincohi, 107 Mass. King v. Aokei^an 67 U. S (2 590 . Black.) 408 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 292 ; Bacon v. Woodvs^ard, 76 Mass. Finlay v. King's Lessee, 28 US. (12 Gray) 876, 379 ; (3 Pet.) 346 ; bk. 7 L. ed 701 ; Tracy t'. Kilborn, 57 Mass. (3 Lambert's Lessees. Paine, 7 U.S. &.) 557 ; (3 Cr.) 97, 180 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377, Putnam ■«. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 ^8^ '„ r^ ■, . „ m ^ Ain lvrptT330 833 • RandaU v. Tuchm, 6 Taunt. 410; Kdlogg'^ Blair, 47Mass. (6 Met.) s.c. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L. 323. 325 ; ^^^^ 20 306 WHAT WORDS CAREY FEE. [Book III. an intent can be found in the will, either expressed or implied in its terms, or drawn by fair inference from other manifest intentions expressed in the will, in favor of the heir at law, it must be construed to pass only an estate for life.^ Sec. 351. Same— What words carry a fee.— It is now the well-settled rule of law in this country that in a devise of lands, words of perpetuity or inheritance are not neces- sary to pass a fee ^ where there are other words which, though not technical in form, clearly indicate the inten- tion of the testator to dispose of his entire estate in the real estate devised.^ Such words and reference as the " Heirs " not only word of devise. • — ^Although the word " heirs " is the raost apt, it is not the only word to devise a fee. Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Bab- cock, 13 John. (N. Y.) 189, 194. ' Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537, 539 ; Farrar v. Avres, 32 Mass. (5 Pick.) 404; KeUett V. KeUett, 3 Dow. 348. ' Lindsay v. McCormack, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 239 ; s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 887 ; Niles V. Gray, 13 Ohio St. 330, 338-330; Lessees of Thompson v. Hoop, 6 Ohio St. 481 ; Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio 365 ; Wood V. Hill, 19 Pa. St. 513 ; Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 684 : 1 Am. L. Reg. 386 ; McCuUough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 370; Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140 ; MiUer v. Lynn, 7 Pa. St. 443 ; McClure v. Douthitt, 3 Pa. St. 446; French v. Mcllhenny, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 13 ; Campbell v. Carson, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 54; Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 368 ; s.c. 11 Am. Deo. 610 ; Harper v. Blean, 3 Watts (Pa.) 471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 367 ; Doughty V. Browne, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 179; Callwell V. Furgeson, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 350 ; Jenkins v. Clement, 1 Harp. (S. C.) Eq. 73 ; s.c. 17 Am Dec. 698; Peyton v. Smith, 4 McC. (S. C.) L. 476 ; s.p. 17 Am. Dec. 758 ; Hope ex d. Brown v. Taylor, 1 Burr. 270 ; Hogan V. Jackson, Cowp. 399 ; Tilley v. Simpson, 2 T. R. 659 ; Grayson ■;;. Atkinson, 1 Wils. 333. Reason for the rule — Aliolition of primogeniture. — In the case of Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio 365, the Supreme Court of Ohio say: "It was said with great force that the act abolishing the right of primogeniture, and the placing real and personal prop- erty on the same footing with personal, ought to change the rigor of the rules which require words of inheritance or perpe- tuity to pass a fee." ' Generic terms — Construed to pass fee. — The words "estate," "property," "all my prop- erty," " the rest of my prop- erty," and the like, are generic terms which are construed to include both real and personal property, unless it is manifest from some other portion of the will that the testator used these words in a different sense. Beall V. Holmes, 6 Harr. & J. (Md.) 305, 310 ; Laing v. Barbour, 119 Mass. 523 ; Hunt V. Hunt, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 190 ; Kellogg r. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 333; Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537 ; Chap. VI. § 351.] WORDS CARRYING FEE. 307 following have been held to pass a fee: "absolutely," following a devise to a widow of "so much of my estate as the law allows her under the intestate laws," where these laws give a life estate in, one half of the husband's realty ; 1 " all and singular my goods and ef- fects ; "2 "all his other property," in a residuary clause of the will, comprehends lands as well as personal prop- erty;^ "all I am worth;"* "all I possess indoors and outdoors ; " ^ "all my estate ; "^ "all my estate, real and ackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel, 17 John. (N. Y.) 281 ; Jackson v. Delaney, 13 John. (N. Y.) 536 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 403 ; Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.) 473 ; S.C. 2 Am. Dec. 580 ; Kennon v. McRoberts, 1 Wash. (Va.) 96 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 428 ; Doe d. Evans ■;;. Evans, 9 Ad. & El. 719; S.C. 36 Eng. C. L.378; Doe exd. Morgan v. Morgan, 6 Barn. & C. 512; s.c. 9 Dow. & R. 633 ; 13 Eng. C. L. 235 ; Hawksworth v. Haveksworth, 27 Beav. 1 ; lie Greenwich Hospital Improve- ment Act, 20 Beav. 458 ; Meeds v. Wood, 19 Beav. 215 ; Patterson v. Huddart, 17 Beav. 210; Edwards v. Barnes, 2 Bing. N. C. 253 ; s.c. 39 Eng. C. L. 524 ; Doe V. Gilbert, 3 Brod. & B. 85 ; Tanner v. Morse, Cas. temp. Talb. 384; Midland Co. R. Co. v. Oswin, 1 CoU. 74 ; Scott V. Alberry, 1 Com. 337 ; s.c. 8 Via. Abr. 228, pi. 14 ; Jongsma v. Jongsma, 1 Cox Eq. 362; Footner v. Cooper, 2 Drew 7 ; D'AJmaine v. Moseley, 1 Drew 629; Doe V. Langlands, 14 East 370 ; Doe V. Lainchbury, 11 East 290 ; Doe V. Tofield, 11 East 246 ; O'Toole V. Browne, 3 El. & Bl. 573; s.c. 77Eng. C.L.573; Smith V. Coffin, 3 H. Bl. 444 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 435 ; Doe ex d. Burkett v. Chapman, 1 H. Bl. 233 ; s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 755 * Lloyd' v. Lloyd, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas 458; Mayor of Hamilton v. Hodsdon, 6MooreP. C. C. 76; Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 My. & Cr. 331; Day V. Daveron, 13 Sim. 300 ; ChurchiU v. Dubben, 9 Sim. 447 King V. Shrives, 5 Sim. 461 ; Tilley v. Simpson, 2 T. R. 659 s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 577 ; Fletcher v. Smiton, 2 T. R. 656 s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 575 ; Beachcrof t v. Beachcrof t, 2 Vem. 690; Church V. Mundy, 15 Ves. 396 ; Rashleigh v. Master, 1 Ves. Jr. 201. ' Oswald V. Kopp, 26 Pa. St. 516. ^ Lessees of Ferguson v. Zepp, 4 Wash. C. C. 645. ' Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.) 473 ; s.c. 3 Am. Deo. 580 ; Read v. Payne, 3 Call (Va.) 325 ; s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 550. ■* Huxtep V. Brooman, 1 Bro. Ch. 437. = Tolar V. Tolar, 3 Hawka. (N. C.) 74 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 575. ' Hammond v. Hammond, 8 GUI & J. (Md.) 487 ; Briggs V. Shaw, 91 Mass. (9 AUen) 517; Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 171 ; Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68 ; Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Leavitt v. Wooster, 14 N. H. 550; Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ; Jackson v. MerrUl, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213 ; Shinn v. Holmes, 35 Pa. St. 143 ; Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.) 473 ; s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 580 ; Johnson v. Kerman, 1 Rol. Abr. 834; Doe V. Williams, 1 Exch. 414 ; Cliff V. Gibbons, 2 Ld. Raym. 1324; Hopewell v. Ackland, 1 Salk. 389; 308 WORDS CAERYING FEE. [Book III- personal,"^ "not disposed of as above mentioned;"^ "all my goods and effects, both real and personal ;''^ "all my inheritance;"* "all my lands ;"^ " all my landed estate;"*' "all my landed property;"^ "all and singular my lands," "to be truly possessed and en- joyed;"^ "all my property ;" ^ "all my property, both real and personal, of whatever name or kind ;"^° "all my real estate ;"i^ "all my real property;"^ or "the remaining part of my realty ; " ^^ " all my real and per- sonal estate ; " " "all my real and personal property ; " ^^ Randall v. Tuohin, 6 Taunt. 410 ; s.c. 1 Eng. C. L. 677 ; 2 Marsh. 117; Doe V. Allen, 8 T. R. 503 ; Grayson v. Atkinson, 1 Wils. 333 • 4 Kent Com. (ISth ed.) 535. Compare : Hart v. "White, 26 Vt. 260. 1 Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68 ; BeU V. Soammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Arnold v. Lincoln, 8 R. I. 384 ; Culbertsonv. Duly, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 195. °- KeHogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 322, 325. "All mj estate, both real and personal," "to be at 's absolute disposal," vests a fee. Jackson ex d. ■;;. Babcock, 12 John. (N. Y.) 389, 393. ^ Lessees of Fergvison v. Zepp. 4 ■ Wash. C. C. 645 ; Tanner v. Wise, 3 Pr. Wms. 395. ^ Jackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel, 17 John. (N. Y.) 281. 5 NUes V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320, 331 • Abbott V. The Essex Co., 59 TJ. S. (18 How.) 202; s.c. bk. 15 L. ed. 352, 355 ; 2 Curt. C. C. 126. « Myers v. Myers, 2 MoO. (S. C.) Eq. 214 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 648. ' Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ; Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23 ; Meyers v. Meyers, 2 McC. (S. C.) Eq. 214; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 648 ; Sharp V. Sharp, 6 Bing. 630 ; s. c. 19 Eng. C,L. 285; Nicholls V. Butcher, 18 Ves. 193. * Distinction between " lands " and "estate." — This was held to pass a fee, upon the known distinction between ' ' all my lands" and " all my estate." Doe V. Baiues, 2 Cromp. M. & R. 231. "My last purchase." — The same is true of " my late purchase," where the purchase was in fee. Neide v. Neide, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 75. * Jackson ex d. Pearson ■;;. Housel, 17 John. (N. Y.) 281, 283 ; Stoever v. Stoever, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 434, 445 ; Rosseter v. Simmons, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 452. "> Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170, 172. " Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170, 173; Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. 533; Bacon v. Woodward, 78 Mass. (13 Gray) 376, 379 ; Putnam v. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 333 ; Kellogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 335; Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 134, 138 ; Abbott V. Essex, 2 Curt. C. C. 126, 132; s.c. 59 U. S. (18 How.) 202; bk.lSL. ed. 352, 355. '2 Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163; Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23; Sharp V. Sharp, 6 Bing. 630; s.c. 19 Eng. C. L. 285 ; Nicholls V. Butcher, 18 Ves. 193. '» NUes V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320, 329. " Godfrey v. Humphreys, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 621. '^ See : Hungerford v. Anderson, 4 Day (Conn.) 368, 371; Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio St. 366, 368; Morrison v. Semple, 6 Binu (Pa.) 94. Chap. VI. § 351.] WORDS CARRYING FEE. 309 "all my real effects;"^ "all my rights ;"2 "all my worldly substance;"^ "all right, title, and interest in the house;"* "all the estate, real- and personal;"^ ' ' all the rest and residue of my real and personal es- tate;"® "all the rest of my lands and tenements;"^ "effects;"^ "I give my lands;"® "in fee-simple;"^" "my landed property ; " " " my late purchase ; " ^ " my plantation ; " ^^ " my property ; " ^* "my real property ; " ^ "my whole estate;"^® a devise of "profits, rents, and ' Mayo i\ Carrington, 4 Call (Va.) 472 ; s.o. 3 Am. Dec. 580. ' Newkerk v. Newkerk, 3 Cai. (N. Y.) 345. ^ Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.) 473; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 580. ' Cole V. Rawlinson, 3 Brown Pari. Cas.7. See : Merritt v. Abendroth, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 318. 'BeUv. Soammon, 15 N. H. 381; S.C. 41 Am. Dec. 706. ' Donovan v. Donovan, 4 Harr. (Del.) 177; McConnel v. Smith, 23 111. 611; Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 188; Davenport •;;. Coltman, 9 Mees. & W.481; Farmer v. Francis, 2 Sim. & S. 505. Compare : Doe d. HurreU v. Hur- rell, 5 Barn. & Aid. 18; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 23. ' Must be in residuary clause. — But does not carry a fee where not the residuary clause. Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 28 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 239 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310. ' Hope ex d. Brown v. Taylor, 1 Burr. 370; Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 399. » Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio 866, 368. Compare : Wright v. Denn ex. d. Page, 33 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 304, 306-331, 333, 338 ; bk. 6 L. ed 803, 819. Giving land to be divided. — In Whaley and Others v. Jenkins, 8 Des. (S. C.)Eq. 80, there were no words of inheritance, and no word which had before been construed to carry a fee-simple. The testator merely gave his two tracts of land, to be equally divided between his two sons, and these words were held suf- ficient to pass the fee. This was followed up by the cases of Clarke v. Mikell, 8 Des. (S. C.) Eq. 168, and Waring v. Middle- ton, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. 249, in which the principle of the former decision was reiterated and enforced. "> Bridgewater v. Bolton, 6 Mod. 106, 109; " Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23. " Neide v. Neide, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 75. '^ Lessees of Thompson v. Hoop, 6 Ohio St. 481; Price V. Taylor, 38 Pa. St. 95; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 105; French v. McIUiermy, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 13 ; CasseU v. Cook, 8Serg. &R. (Pa.) 268; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 610; Waring v. Middleton, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. 249 ; Clarke v. Mikell, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. 168; Jenkins v. Clement, 1 Harp. (S. C.) Eq. 72; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 698; Peyton v. Smith, 4 McC. (S. C.) 476 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 758. Compare: Steele v. Thompson, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 84. " Jackson ex. d. Pierson v. Housel, 17 John. (N. Y.) 281. " Niles V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320 ; Morrison v. Semplc, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 94 ■ Dice V. Sheffer, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 419. '" Hammond v. Hammond, 8 GiR & J. (Md.) 437 ; Briggs V. Shaw, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 517; Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 171 ; Jackson «. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 313 ; Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. St. 142 ; Doe V. Williams, 1 Exch. 414 ; 310 WORDS CAEEYING FEE. [Book III. income " of land ; ^ or of "property,"^ or "leasehold," where the intention is clear ; ^ the devise of a " remain- der " or a " reversion, " after the disposition of a particular estate ;* or of the "residue of the real estate ; " ^ " res- idue or remainder " of "my estate, real and personal ; " ® "rest and residue of all my property, real, personal, and mixed;"'' all "right and title to" property, the devisor having a fee;^ "right to certain rents ;" ^ "share," where preceded by words showing intention to dispose of the whole estate ; " ^° a devise to several to enjoy and holds as tenants in common ; " ^^ "to have, hold and enjoy forever, for the free use of her and no other person, excepting by her assignment and will ;" ^^ ' ' to my wife the land her father gave me ; " ^ " undivided half" of land described ;" '^ devise to "use forever. "^^ Johnson v. Kerman, 1 Eol. Abr. 834; Eandall v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ; B.C. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L. 677. Compare : Hart v. Wliite, 26 Vt. 260. ' Earl V. Grim, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 494 • Drusadow v. WUde, 63 Pa. St. 170; Anderson v. Greble, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 136, 138 ; Carlyle v. Cannon, 3 Eawle (Pa.) 489. A devise of "income, lands, and use," followed by a devise over, does not convey the fee, but a hfe estate only. France's Estate, 75 Pa. St. 230. And the same is true where they are given for a limited time only. Earl V. Grim, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 494. « Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 168. See : Jackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel, 17 John. (N. Y.) 281 ; Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.) 473; Wilce V. Wilce, 7 Bing. 664 ; s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 396 ; Billing V. Billing, 5 Sim. 333. The word property, in its most strict and proper nse, relates solely to the quantity of estate in the land, and, unless words restraining its significance are added, always means the whole interest. The word property in such connection is synony- mous with the word estate or interest, and includes every- thing in the land which the testator possessed. Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163. s Saylor v. Kocher, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 163. * Annable v. Patch, 30 Mass. (3 Pick.) 360 ; Cruger v. Haywood, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. 94. See : Lippen v. Eldred, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 130 ; Bee d. Lean v. Lean, 1 Ad. & E. N. S. 339 ; s.c. 41 Eng. C. L. 515. Compare: Peiton v. Banks, 1 Vern. 65. ' Forsaith v. Clark, 21 N. H. 409. " Peppard -v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140 ; Doughty V. Browne, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 179. ' Lincoln v. Lincoln, 107 Mass. 590. " Merritt v. Abendroth, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 318. " Newkerk v. Newkerk, 2 Cai. (N. Y.) 845. '"McClure's Heirs v. Douthitt, 3 Pa. St. 446. " Croskyy. Dodds, 87 Pa. St. 359. '* Denn d. Bolton v. Bowne, 18 N. J. L. (3 Harr.) 210. '3 PuroeU V. WiLson,4 Gratt. (Va.) 16. " Waterman v. Greene, 12 R. I. 483. '^ Gift to nse where title not re- qnired.— Where the land is given for a certain use which Chap. VI. § 352.] WORDS CARRYING FEB. 311 And where the devise in terms imposes a personal charge upon the devisee,^ invests him with the power of ap- pointment,^ and the like, the devise passes the fee ; but the mere use of the word "tract," excluding a portion previously devised for life, will not carry a fee-simple by implication.^ At common law a devise "of the rest of my lands, in possession, reversion, or remainder," does not carry a fee.* There has been said to be nothing in the words "I devise all my real estate" incompatible with the intention to devise for life only.^ Sec. 352. Same—" Estate " is genus generalissimum. — The word ' ' estate " includes every kind of property, and when used in a will is genus generalissimum,^ and carries a fee, unless tied down and controlled by particular expressions, '^ does not require the title, the testator will be pi-esumed to have given a inere easement. Sa^ston V. Mitchell, 78 Pa. St. 481. 1 See : Post, § 380. ' See : Pout, § 369, et seq. 3 Wilson V. WUson, 4 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 159. i Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 23 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 304 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 303. 5 Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513, 515; Helmer v. Shoemaker, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 137. ^ Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13 Iowa 549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548, 551. ' Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13 Iowa 549 ; s.o. 79 Am. Deo. 448 ; Tracy v.Kilborn, 57 Mass.(3Cush.) 557; Putnam v. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 330, 333 ; Kellogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 322, 325 ; Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 621; Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513 ; Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Bab- cock, 13 John. (N. Y.) 389, 393 ; Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7 U. S. (3 Cr.) 97, 130 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377, 388. See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.) 339 ; Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68; Jackson «. DeLanoy, 13 John. (N. Y.) 537 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 403 ; Jackson v. DeLancy, 11 John. (N. Y.) 365 ; Thurbett v. Thurbett, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 187 ; s.c. 2 Am. Deo. 369 ; Busby V. Busby, 1 U. S. (1 DaU.) 226 ; bk. 1 L. ed. Ill; Blagge V. Miles, 1 Story C. C. 436, 438 ; Fletcher v. Smiton, 3 T. B. 656 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 575 ; Holdfast V. Marten, 1 T. B. 411 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 243 ; Murry v. Wyse, 2 Vern. 564 ; Tanner v. Wise, 3 Pr. Wms. 295. "Estate" in devise refers to title — ^When descriptive of corpus. — It is said in the case of Terry V. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 512, that the word ' ' estate " used in a de- vise refers to the testator's title, and indicates an intent to give all the estate or interest in the property which the testator can dispose of by wiU, unless by ex- press terms or by necessary implication it appear that it was used as descriptive of, or referring to, the corpus of the property, but it may be con- trolled by other portions of the will. It is said in the case of Putnam V. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 330, 333, that a devise of the testator's whole estate will pass a fee, on being seized of such an estate, is unquestionable, unless given in such words as go merely to describe the lands 312 ' ESTATE " A GENERAL TERM. [Book III. or by the context of the will ; ^ therefore a devise of all a man's estate, where there are no words to control or re- strain its operation, will be construed not merely to mean his lands, but the quantity of interest which he has in them, so as to pass an estate of inheritance if he has one.^ Justice Johnson says in the case of Lambert's Lessee v. Paine : ^ " I consider the doctrine as well established, that the word' estate, made use of in a devise of realty, will carry a fee, or whatever other interest the devisor pos- sesses. And I feel no disposition to vary the legal effect of the word, whether preceded by my or the, or followed by at or in, or in the singular or plural number. The in- tent with which it is used is the decisive consideration ; devised, and not the extent of his interest therein. Citing : Kellogg v. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 325 ; Godfrey ■;;. Humphrey, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537 ; s.o. 39 Am. Deo. 621; Brown v. "Wood, 17 Mass. 73 ; Randall v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ; s.o. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L. 677. Donovan v. Donovan, 4 Harr. (Del.) 177 ; Doe V. Kinnev, 3 Ind. 50 ; Doe V. Harter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 488; Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 171 ; Kellogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 335; Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 631; Jackson v. MerriU, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 213 ; Arnold v. Lincoln, 6 R. I. 384. Words of locality and description refsrring to corpus. — And this is true although the word is accompanied by other words of locality and description,or other expression exclusively referable to the corpus of the property. Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 171, 175 ; Doe d. Knott v. Lawton, 4 Bing. jSr. C. 455,461 ; s.c. 6 Scott 318 ; 33 Eng. O. L. 802, 805 ; Randall v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ; s.c. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L. 677. Same — Estate of " Marrowbone. " — Such as "all the estate called Marrowbone, in the county of Hanover, containing by estima- tion 2,500 acres of land." Lambert's Lessee ^j. Paine, 7 U. S. (3 Or.) 97, 130 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377, ' 388. 2 Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 537, 539 ; s.c. 29 Am. Deo. 621. See : Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13 Iowa 549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548 ; Hammond v. Hammond, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 487 ; Briggs V. Shaw, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 517; Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 71 ; Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Jackson v. MerriU, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213 ; Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. St. 143 ; Zimmerman v. Anders, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 318 ; s.o. 40 Am. Dec. 553; Myers v. Myers, 2 McC. (S. C.) Eq. 314 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 648 ; Doe V. WiUiams, 1 Exch. 414 ; Bridgewater v. Bolton, 6 Mod. 106, 109 ; Johnson v. Kerman, 1 Rol. Abr. 834; Randall 'v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ; s.c. 3 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L. 677; Holdfast V. Marten, 1 T. R. 411 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 343. Compare : Hart v. White, 36 Vt. 360. 'IV.S. (3 Cr.) 97, 130 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377, 388. Chap. VI. § 353.] PASSING FEE IN REVERSION. 313 and I should not feel myself sanctioned in refining away the operation of that intent by discriminations so minute as those which have been attempted at different stages of English jurisprudence. The word estate, in testament- ary cases, is suflaciently descriptive both of the subject and the interest existing in it. It is unquestionably true that its meaning may be restricted by circumstances or expressions indicative of its being used in a hmited or par- ticular sense, so as to confine it to the subject alone ; but certainly, in its general use, it is understood to apply more pertinently to the interest in the subject." Sec. 353. Same — What passes fee in reversion. — Where a testator devises to the legatee certain real property, de- scribing it, together with certain personal property, and adds, ' ' with whatsoever is not named that I have any right or claim to either in right or equity, " will vest in such legatee the reversion in fee to real property ; ^ and where a particular estate is given to a person in one part of a will, and the testator afterwards devises to him in more general terms, a fee will pass the same as though there had not been a gift of the particular estate.^ Thus in Hogan v. Jackson ^ the testator gave to his mother his home and lands at G. during her natural life, and, after several legacies to others, devised to his mother all the remainder and residue of his effects, both real and per- sonal, which he should die possessed of, and the court held that by the residuary clause the mother took a fee in the real estate. In Chester t\ Chester * a father, on the marriage of his son, settled part of his lands on him in tail, and being seized in fee of the reversion of the lands so settled and of other lands in possession, subse- quently devised all his lands and hereditaments not otherwise disposed of, and the court held that the rever- ' Harper r. Blean, 3 Watts (Pa.) given to a person in one part of 471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 367. a will, and the testator after- Approved : Geyer v. Wentzel, 68 wards devises to liini in more Pa. St. 88 ; general terms, he shall not reap Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 89 ; any benefit from the general Brown r. Boyd, 9 Watts (Pa.) 129. devise. ' Lord Mansfield says that it would Hogan v. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 299, be going a great ways to lay 308. down as a general rule, that ' 1 Cowp. 399. when a particular estate is ■'3 Pr. Wms. 56. 311 WHEN FEE VESTS. [BOOK III. sion in the lands settled on the son in tail passed. And in a case where a testator gave to his wife an estate for life in part of his real estate, and, after disposing of the balance in fee, bequeathed to her the residue and re- mainder. Lord Hardwicke held that the residuary clause carried the inheritance.^ Sec. 354. Same— When the fee vests.— "Where real estate is devised to a legatee without words of limitation, the fee vests immediately upon the death of the testator ; and when the enjoyment of the estate is divided into successive periods, all the fragments of it vest at the same time.^ Where there is a devise of real estate to one for life, and after his death to another, or to two or more persons, or the survivor or survivors of them, their heirs and assigns, forever, the remaindermen take a vested interest at the death of the testator ; ^ and where a de- vise of real estate thus made is to take effect immediately upon the death of the testator, words of survivorship refer to that time, and a fee vests, on the happening of the event, in the survivors to the exclusion of the per- sonal representatives of such that may have died before the testator.* But where the gift is of an estate to a trustee to be held until the youngest child of such testator should attain majority, and providing that the property shall then be equally divided among his children, at the death of the testator the trustee takes an estate for years, ^ and those children living at the time of the testator's death take a vested fee-simple estate subject to the trust ; and should one of the devisees die before the expiry of the trust estate his interest will descend to his heirs, if not aliened or otherwise disposed of.* Where such an estate ' Ridout V. Paine, 3 Atk. 488. Bro. C. C. 386 ; ■• King V. King, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) Taylor v. Langford, 3 Ves. 119. 305 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 459 ; ^ Moore v. Lyons, 35 Wend. (N. Y.) Scurfield v. Howes, 3 Bro. C. C. 119 ; 90 ; * Branson v. HiU, 31 Md. 181 ; s.c. Benyon v. Maddison, 2 Bro. C. C. 1 Am. Rep. 40 ; 75 ; Doe ex d. Long v. Prigg, 8 Barn. Monkhouse v. Hohne, 1 Bro. C. C. & C. 331 ; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. 131. 398 ; 6 Doe ex d. Player v. NichoUs, 1 Blamii-e v. Geldart, 16 Ves. 314, Barn. & C. 336 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C. 319 ; L. 144. Balmaia v. Shore, 9 Ves. 500 ; « Hempstead v. Dickson, 30 111. 193; Attorney-General v. Crispin, 1 s.c. 71 Am. Dec, 360. Chap. VI. § 355.] SURVIVORSHIP IN WILLS. 315 is not immediate, there being a prior life carried out, and words of perpetuity qualify those of survivorship, the sur- vivor will not take the whole gift to the exclusion of the heirs or representatives of his co-legatee.^ Sec. 355. Same — Words of survivorship in wills — Doctrine of early English cases.— An examination of the earlier English cases shows that the courts uniformly thought that words of survivorship in wills of hoth real and per- sonal estates referred to the death of the testator. Some of the cases are based upon the particular phraseology and context of the wills, and others upon the principal intention of the testator, making allowances for the defi- ciency and inaccuracy of the expressions so commonly to be found under testamentary interests to the abolishing of the law which favors the vesting of estates, and others again upon the presumption that the testator did not intend to cut off from the provisions of his will the children and descendants of such of the former legatees or devisees as might happen to die before the termination of the intermediate estate.^ See : Everts v. Chittendon, 3 Day Williamson v. Field's Ex'rs, 2 (Conn.) 388 ; s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 97 ; Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 533 ; King V. King, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) Minnig v. Batdorflf, 5 Pa. St. 508 ; 205 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 459 ; Kinsey v. Lardner, 15 Serg. & R. Doe ex d. Long v. Prigg, 8 Barn. (Pa.) 196 ; & C. 231 ; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. Rivers v. Friff, 4 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 121 ; , 376 ; Doe ex d. Player v. Nicholls, 1 Doe d. Cadogan v. Ewart, 7 Ad. Barn. & C. 336 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C. & El. 636 ; s.c. 34 Eng. C. L. L. 144 ; 337 ; Doe ex d. Wheedon v. Lea, 3 T. Goodtitle v. Whitby, 1 Burr. 228; R. 41 : s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 631. Doe ex d. Wheedon v. Lea, 3 T. Stanley v. Stanley, 16 Ves. 491. R. 41 ; s.c. 1 Rev^ Rep 681 ; ' Branson v. HiU, 31 Md. 181 ; s.c. Boraston's Case, 3 Coke 21a, 21b. 1 Am. Rep. 40. * Doe ex d. Long v. Prigg, 8 Barn. See : Scott v. Logan, 03 Ark. 351, & C. 331 ; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. 352 • 121 ! Watkins V. Quarles. 33 Ark. 179 ; Rose v. Hill, 3 Burr. 1881 ; Danforth v. Talbot, 7 B. Mon. Goodtitle u Whitby, 1 Burr. 338 ; (Kv ) 623 ■ Brown v. Bigg, 7 Ves. 279b ; Roberts v. Brmker, 4 Dana (Ky.) Maberly v. Strod, 3 Ves. 450 ; s.c. 570 573 • 4 Rev. Rep. 61 ; Allen V. Vkn Meter, 1 Met. (Ky.) Perry v. Woods, 3 Ves. 204 ; 3g4. Habergham v. Vincent, 3 Ves. Meyer v. Eisler, 39 Md. 28, 32 ; Jr. 304 ; Bredell-y. Collier, 40 Mo. 287; Marryat v. Townly, 1 Ves. Sr. Roome V. Phillips, 24 N. Y. 463, 102. 465; 316 SURVIVORSHIP— AMERICAN DOCTRINE. [Book III. Sec. 366. Same— Same — Doctrine of later English cases.— The later English cases manifest a disposition to break away from the array of authorities, extending in un- broken phalanx over more than two centuries, in favor of the rule of construction above set out, especially in those cases where there is a gift of personal estate to a donee for life, and after the termination of such interest to certain persons nominatim ; in which case there is a strong inclination to refer the words of survivorship to the period of distribution, or to the termination of the intermediate estate ; that is to say, the legatees surviving at that time take to the exclusion of the personal repre- sentatives of such as may have died before that period.^ Sec. 357. same— Same — Doctrine of the American eases.— In this country the weight of authority seems to be in favor of the earlier rule, which refers the words of sur- vivorship to the death of the testator, and without recognizing any distinction between real and personal property.^ Sec. 358. Same— Limited remainder — "Vesting of. — In the case of Moore v. Lyons ^ the devise was " to Mary for life, and from and after her death to her three daughters, or to the survivors or survivor of them, their or her heirs and assigns forever." The chancellor, in commenting upon this devise, remarks ■ that where a remainder is so limited as to take effect in possession, if ever, immedi- ately on the termination of a particular estate, which is to determine by an event which must unavoidably happen by the efflux of time, the remainder vests an in- terest as soon as the remainderman is in esse and 1 Goddard I!. Lethbridge, 16 Beav. Neatwayw. Reed, 17 Jur. 169; s.o. 539 ; 17 Eng. L. & Eq. 151. Smith y. Osborne, 6 H. of L. Cas. ' Branson v. Hill, 31 Md. 181 • s o 391 ; 1 Am. Rep. 40 ; Cripps V. Wolcott, 4 Madd. 11 ; Blanchard v. Blanchard, 83 Mass. Pope V. Whitcombe, 3 Russ. 124 ; (1 Allen) 233 ; Turing v. Turing, 15 Sim. 139, Moore v. Lyons, 35 Wend. fN. Y.) 510; 119; Newton V. Aysoough, 19 Ves. Ross v. Drake, 37 Pa. St. 373 ; 534 ; Hansford v. Elliot, 9 Leigh (Va.) Brograve v. Winder, 3 Ves. Jr. 79. 634 ; s 35 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 144. Chap. VI. § 359.] VESTING OF REMAINDER. 3ir ascertained ; provided nothing but his own death before the determination of the particular estate will prevent such remainder from vesting in possession. But, if the estate is limited over to another, in the event of such death before the particular estate determines, his vested estate is subject to be divested by that event, and the interest of the substituted remainderman, which was before either an executory devise or a contingent remain- der, will, if he is in esse and ascertained, be immediately changed into a vested remainder. ^ Sec. 359. Same — Devise with power— Carries fee when. — It is a well-established rule that where an estate is de- vised to a person generally, or indefinitely, with an un- limited power of disposition, the absolute fee passes to the devisee.^ The only exception to this rule is when the testator gives the first taker an estate for life only, by certain express words, and annexes to it a power of dis- posal.^ Thus where a testator devised lands to his wife See : Williamson v. Field's Ex'rs, 2 Sandf, Ch. (N. Y.) 533, 551. Todd V. Sawyer, 147 Mass. 570 ; s.c. 17N.E.Rep. 537; Cummings v. Shaw, 108 Mass. 159. See : Denson v. Mitchell, 26 Ala. 860; Cook V. Walker, 15 Ga. 457 ; Fairman v. Beal, 14 111. 344 ; Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ; Kelley v. Meins, 135 Mass. 331 ; Gibbins v. Shepard, 125 Mass. 541, 543 ; Whitcomb v. Taylor, 133 Mass. 343, 248 ; Lyon V. Marsh, 116 Mass. 233 ; Bowen v. Dean, 110 Mass. 438 ; Hale V. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468 ; Jackson v. Robins, 16 John. (N. Y.) 588 ; Second Reformed Pres. Church V. Disbrow, 54 Pa. St. 319 ; Morris v. Phaler, 1 Watts (Pa.) 389; Smith V. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.) ■ 63 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ; Pulliam V. Byrd, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) Eq. 134 ; Burwell v. Anderson, 3 Leigh (Va.) 348, 356 ; Robinson v. Dusgate, 3 Vern. 181; Paice V. Archbishop of Canter- bury, 14 Ves. 364, 370 ; Post. § 368. Estate for li&, with power of dis- position, — It is said in Rubey v. Bamett, 12 Mo. 3 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 112, that where an ex- press estate for life is given by wiU, and a power of disposition is afterwards conferred, the devisee takes but a life estate, with a power of disposition, and if no disposition is made, the reversion will go to the heirs of the devisor. But if there is no previous devise of a life estate, but a simple power of disposition is given, then the devisee takes an absolute estate. And this rule applies both to the real and personal estate. ' Smith V. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 63 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498, 500. See : Cook v. Walker, 15 Ga. 457 ; Moore v. Webb, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 282; Stevens v. Winship, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 318; s.c. 11 Am. Dec.178; Jackson v. Robins, 16 John. (N. Y.) 588 ; Flinthan's Case, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 16. Post, % 369. 318 DEVISE WITH POWEE— CAREIES FEE. [Book III. for life, and gave her power, in case of need, to sell all the estate, both real and personal, for her comfortable support, it was held that she took only a life estate with the power of sale depending on a contingency.^ Judge Agnew says, in the case of Dodson v. Ball,^ that " the rule laid down is, that when an estate for life only is given, followed by a general power of appointment, and on failure to appoint to children, or to specified heirs, the power to appoint will not enlarge the estate of the cestui que trust to a fee ; and on the failure to appoint, the children or specified donees in remainder take by purchase from the donor, and not by way of limitation as heirs of the cestui que trust. " ^ But it is thought that a limitation to heirs on the failure to appoint unquestion- ably enlarges the life estate to a fee by union of estates. * The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in the case of Hale V. Marsh,^ say that where a gift is of a life estate, with a full power of disposition, both by deed and will, over the entire property, at the pleasure of the devisee, without limitation or restriction as to the time, mode, or purpose of the execution of the power, the life estate and unlimited power of disposition over the remainder coa- lesce and form an estate in fee, and that a devise over of what may remain is void, because inconsistent with the unlimited power of disposition given to the first taker.® ' Stevens v. Winship, 18 Mass. (1 « 60 Pa. St. 492 ; s.c. 100 Am. Deo. Pick.) 318 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 586, 590. 178. 8 See : Girard Life Ins. & Trust Co. See: Warren v. Webb, 68 Me. v. Chambers, 46 Pa. St. 490; 133 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 513 ; Lamed v. Bridge, 34 Mass. (17 Smith v. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.) Pick.) 339. 63, 66 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ; Estate for life with limited power Anderson v. Dawson, 15 Ves. 532 ; of disposal.— The distinction 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 663. between such cases as this and * Nice's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 143 ; those where a life estate is given Physick's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 128 ; with an unlimited power of EaJston v. Wain, 44 Pa. St. 279. disposal is clearly pointed out '• 100 Mass. 468. in Hale v. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468, " See : Jones v. Bacon, 68 Me. 34 ; wherein it is held that in tlie s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 1 ; cases of the latter kind tlie life Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 21 Me. estate and the power of disposal 288; coalesce in the form of a fee, CummingsuShaw, 108 Mass.159; so that the devise over is void, Dodge v. Moore, 100 Mass. 335 ; the whole estate vesting in the Gleason v. Fayerweather, 70 first taker. To the same effect Mass. (4 Gray) 348, 351 ; is Jones v. Bacon, 68 Me. 34; Harris v. Baiapp, 38 Mass. (21 s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 1. Pick.) 412 ; Chap. VI. §§ 360, 361.] WHEN FEE DOES NOT PASS. 319 Sec. 360. Same— Same— When fee does not pass.- Where an express estate for life is given by a will, and the power of disposition is afterward conferred, the devisee takes but a life estate, notwithstanding the naked and dis- tinct power of disposition of the reversion.^ The distinc- tion between a gift for life, with the power of disposition superadded, and a gift to a person indefinitely, with a superadded power to dispose by deed or will, is perhaps slight ; but that distinction is perfectly established, and in the latter case the property vests. Thus a gift to A, and to such person as he shall appoint,- is absolute property in A, without an appointment ; but if it is given to him for life, and after his death to such person as he shall appoint by will, he must make an appointment in order to entitle that other person to anything. ^ Sec. 361. Same— Same— Same— Reason for the rule. — The reason for this rule is said to be that the express estate for life negatives the intention to give an absolute prop- erty, and converts these words into words of mere power, which, standing alone, would not have been construed to convey an interest.^ There is an exception to this rule, Lamed v. Bridge, 34 Mass. (17 Burwell v. Anderson, 3 Leigh Pick.) 339 ; (Va.) 348, 356 ; Stevens v. Wlnship, 18 Mass. Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron a Pick.) 318 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. Co., 93 U. S. (3 Otto.) 336 ; bk. 178 ; 23 L. ed. 927 ; s.c. 16 Am. L. Ide D.'ide, 5 Mass. 500 ; Reg. 403 ; Brant v. Gelston, 2 John. Cas. Anonymous, Cart. 233 ; (N. Y.) 384 ; Dighton v. Tomlinson, 1 Com. Stroud v. Morrow, 7 Jones (N. C.) 194 ; s.c. sub.nom. TomUnson^. L. 463 ; Dighton, 1 Pr. Wms. 149 ; Second Reform Pres. Church v. Liefe v. Salingstone, 1 Mod. 189 ; Disbrow, 52 Pa. St. 219. s.c. 1 Freem. 149, 163 ; ' Bubey v. Barneit, 12 Mo. 3 ; s.c. Reid v. Shergold, 10 Ves. 370 ; 49 Am Dec. 112. Nannock v. Horton, 7 Ves. 391 ; See : Denson v. MitcheU, 36 Ala. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 319 ; 360- 2 Story's Eq. Jur. (13th ed.) Cook '«. Walker, 15 Ga. 457, 462 ; §1393; Haralson v. Redd, 15 Ga. 148 ; 1 Sugd. on Powers 121. Funk V Eggleston, 92 111. 515 ; ^ Bradly v. Westcott, 13 Ves. 445, Fairman «. Beal, 14 III. 344 ; 453 ; s c. 9 Rev. Rep 307 ; Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ; Reidv Shergold, 10 Ves. 370. French v. Hatch, 28 N. H. 331, See: Gilman i). Bell,99 111 144,150 ; 350; Fairman v. Beal, 14 111. 244 ; Jackson V. Robins, 16 John. (N. Pulham v. Byrd, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) Y ) 588 • Eq. 134, 142. Second Reformed Pres. Church ^ Burwell v. Anderson, 3 Leigh (Va.) V. Disbrow, 53 Pa. St. 219 ; 348, 357. • Pulliam V. Byrd, 2 Strobh. (S. C.) See : Denson v. MitoheU, 26 Ala. Eq. 134 ; . 360. 320 LIMITATION OVER— FEE. [Book III. however, in all those cases where the general words in the devise, implying a life estate, if limited to such an estate, would manifestly defeat the intention of the tes- tator, when under the rule heretofore referred to ^ the intention of the testator must be permitted to control and enlarge the estate to a fee.^ Sec. 362. Same— Devise with limitation over— Contingent fee.— The general rule respecting limitations over in case of failure to designate heirs, which has obtained in England since the case of Pells v. Brown,^ decided during the reign of King James I., in the year 1620, is that where an estate is devised by a person generally, without words of limitation, it is not enlarged to a fee-simple by the mere fact that it is a devise after a life estate ; * and if the devise over be contingent on the death of the devisee without heirs, or a specified line of heirs, with the limit- ation over to the collateral line of the devisee, such devise vests in the devisee a determinable fee-simple,® 1 See : Ante, 8 345. » See : Benesoh v. Clark, 49 Md.497; Burleigh v. Clough, 52 N. H. 367, 274 ; s.c. 13 Am. Hep. 33 ; Second Reformed Pres. Church V. Disbrow, 53 Pa. St. 219 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 319. Cro. Jac. 590. PeUs V. Brown "the magna ciarta of this branch of the law." — It is said lq Abbott v. The Essex Co., 59 U. S. (18 How.) 202 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 353, 355 ; s. c. 3 Curt. C. C. 136, that notwithstanding the expres- sions in Plunket v. Homes, Sid. 47, derogatory of the case of Pells V. Brown, it has always been considered ' ' a leading case, and the foundation of this branch of the law." In Porter V. Bradley, 3 T. R. 143 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 675, where lands were devised to A and his heirs, and if he die leaving no issue behind him, then over, it was decided that the limitation over was good by way of exec- utory devise ; and Lord Ken- yon acknowledges the case of Pells V. Brown to be " the foundation and magna oharta of this branch of the law." ■* In Wheaton v. Andress, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 452, Judge Cowan, ia delivering his opinion, said : " No case holds that the intro- . ductory clause manifesting an intent to dispose of the entire estate of the testator, ■ simply connected with the words free- ly to be enjoyed, etc. , the whole will carry a fee. To do this where there are no words of express limitation, all the cases agree that the will should con- tain some provision in respect to the land, necessarily incon- sistent with the estate being for life. Freelyto be enjoyed, etc., may come much short of this." His honor pointed out that in Denn ex d. Gaskin v. Gaskin, Cowp. 657, and Wright ex d. Shaw V. Russell, Id. (cited by counsel), a disinheriting legacy had been given to the heir at law, and that the authority of the cases had been weakened by the opinions and comments of Lord Ellenborotjgh and Le Blanc and Dreuey, JJ., in Goodright ex d. Drewry v. Barron, 11 East 220. « See : Post, chapter IX., " De- terminable Fees." Chap. VI. § 363.] LIMITATION OVER— INTERPRETATION. 321 and not a fee-tail ; ^ and on the happening of the contin- gency on which the fee is to be determined, the estate passes over, not as a remainder, but by way of executory devise.^ Under a general devise with remainder over, upon a limited contingency, as upon the devisee's dying under twenty-one years of age, the first devisee takes a fee-simple, for if the intent were to give only a life estate, with remainder over, there could be no reason for limiting to the death under age.^ Sec. 363. Same — Same— Limitation over void for uncer- tainty—Pee in first taker.— A limitation over in case the legatee die ' ' without lawful issue " must be interpreted as one to take effect upon the death of the party, with- out leaving issue at the death, unless the contrary be ' Morris v. Potter, 10 R. I. 58. » Niles V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320, 330. See : Jordan v. Roaclie, 32 Miss. 481; Abbott -u. The Essex Co., 59 U. S. (18 How.) 202 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 352; s.c. SCurt. C. C. 126; I>03 ex d. King v. Frost, 3 Barn. & Aid. 546 ; s.c. 5 Eng. C. L. 316; Ex parte Bavies, 21 L. J. (N. S.) Oh. 13 ; s.c. 9 Eng.L. & Eq. 88. Estate limit3d to a in;;ii and his heirs — Constniction of devise.— It is said by Kenyon, C. J., in Porter v. Bradley, 3 T. R. 143 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 675, that the general rules respecting limitations of this sort have been for many years well settled. The first question that arises in this case is, whetlier this is an estate-tail, or in fee ? The first part of the devise to Philip, prima facie, carries a fee, for it is to him, his heirs, and assigns forever ; but it is clear that these words may be restrained by subsequent ones so as to carry only an estate- tail. And a long string of cases may be cited, in order to show that where an estate is limited to a man and his heirs forever, and if he die without leaving heirs, then to his brother, or to any person who may be his heir ; those words shall not have their full legal operation, but shall be restrained to heirs of a 21 particular kind, namely, heirs of the body. If the subsequent part of this devise had been, " and in case he shall die without issue, then over," it would liave given to Philip an estate-tail, which he might have barred by the recovery. And so it would, under the con- struction of. the words " die without issue," then prevalent in England, but since changed by act of Parliament there, and never adopted here. But here the words were, ' ' but in case he shall happen to die, leaving no issue behind him ; " which makes a material differ- ence, and brings it within the' case of Pells v. Brown,, which is the foundation and, as; it were, the magna cliarta of tliis branch of the law. This ques- tion arose soon after executory devises were first taken notice of, which was in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. And that doctrine has never been since doubted by the court of law. 8 "Williams v. Dickerson, 2 Root (Conn.) 191 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 66 ; Lippett V. Hopkins, 1 Gall. C. G 454, 455. See : Gray v. "Winkler, 4 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 308 ; Carter v. Reddish, 32 Ohio St. 1 ; Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 268 ; s.o. 11 Am. Dec. 610 ; Scanlan v. Porter, 1 Bail. (S. C.) L. 427. 322 LIMITATION OVER— VOID. [Book III. plainly declared in the will.-' Such limitation over upon the indefinite failure of issue of the first taker is void as an executory devise, hecause too remote,^ unless there is ' Spruill V. Moore, 5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 284 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 438. Ste: Williams v. Dicker.son, 3 Eoot (Conn.) 191 ; s.c. 1 Am. Deo. 66. Dying withoTit issue is to be un- derstood to relate to the time of the devisee's death, unless a different intent appears. Williams v. Diokerson, 3 Boot (Conn.) 191 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 66 ; Spruill V. Moore, 5 Ired. (N. C.) Bq. 284; s.c. 49 Am. Deo. 478. Slstinction lietween devise of lands and of personalty. — In the case of Downing v. Wherrin, 19 N. H. 9 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 139, 144-145, it is said that a distinction has been made be- tween a devise of lands and a devise of personalty upon a person dying without issue. In the former case the words are always taken to mean when- ever there is a failure of issue, and the lintlitation over is void. In the latter case they are con- strued in the ordinary sense, and mean dying without leav- ing issue at the time of the death. This distinction was first taken in Forth v. Chap- man, 1 Pr. Wms. 663, and the decision has given rise to much litigation. Its soundness has been affirmed and denied by many eminent lawyers, some adhering to it, and others hold- ing that there is no difference between a limitation of real and persona] property. Among those who do not recognize the distinction are Lord Lough- borough, in Chandless v. Price, 3 Ves. 99 ; Lord Axvanly, in Rawlins v. Goldfrap, 5 Ves. 440 ; Lord Bjenyon, in Porter V. Bradley, 3 T. R. 146 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 675, and in Roe v. Jeffeiy, 7 T. E. 595 ; Sir Wm. Grant, in Barlow ■;;. Salter, 17 Ves. 479, and in the case of Dansey v. Griffiths, 4 Maul. & Sel. 63. On the other side are Denn v. Shenton, 1 Cowp. 410, and Crooke v. De Vandes, 9 Ves. 197, and Doe d. Cadogan V. Ewart, 7 Ad. & El. 636 ; s.c. 84 Eng. C. L. 337. ^ Bell V. Scammon, 15 N-. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Deo. 706. See : Proprietors of Battle Square Church V. Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 143, 157 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 735, 736 ; Ide V. Ide, 5 Mass. 500 ; Downing v. Wherrin, 19 N. H. 9; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 139 ; Hall 1-. Chaffee, 14 N. H. 315, 330; Tator V. Tator, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 431; Ferris v. Gibson, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 707 ; Conklin v. Conklin, 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 64 ; Miller v. Macomb, 36 Wend. (N. Y ) 339 • Paterson v. Ellis, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 359 ; Shepard v. Shepard, 3 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 142 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 41 ; Ring V. Hardwiok, 3 Beav. 353 ; Tenny v. Agar, 13 East 353 ; Doe V. EUis, 9 East 383 ; Kampf V. Jones, 2 Keen 756 ; Massey v. Hudson, 3 Meriv. 135 ; NichoUs V. Skinner, Prec. Ch. 538; Busby V. Saulter, 2 Prest. Abs. 164; Attorney-General v. Gill, 3 Pr. V/ms. 369 ; Nottingham v. Jennings, 1 Pr. Wms. 33, 25 ; Puref oy v. Rogers, 3 Saund. 388a, 388b; Purefoy v. Rogers, 3 Saund. 388 ; Romilly v. James, 6 Taunt. 263 ; s.c. 1 Eng. C. L. 606 ; Doe V. Morgan, 3 T. R. 765 ; 1 Fearne Cont. Rem. 467 ; 1 PoweU on Dev. 178, 179. Devise over — Includes real estate as well as personalty. — In the case of Jackson v. Staats, 11 John. (N. Y.) 337 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 376, where, after sundry devises in fee and bequests to his children, exhausting the estate, the testator added, "if any one or more happens to die without heirs, then his or their parts or shares shall be equally Chap. VI. § 364.] FEE IN FIRST TAKER. 323 something in the will to restrict the term " death without issue " to lives in being and twenty-one years thereafter ; ^ but if the limitation is made to take effect at the death of the devisee, in case there is no issue living at that time, it is a good executory devise.^ Yet a limitation by way of executory devise, which may possibly not take effect within a term within the life or lives in being at the death of the testator and twenty -one years thereafter, or in case of a child eii ventre sa mere twenty-one years and nine months, is void as being too remote, and tending to create perpetuities.^ Sec. 364. Same— Same— Same— Fee in. first taker.— Where a limitation over is void for remoteness and uncertainty, it vests in the first taker an absolute fee,* even though divided among the rest of the children," it was held that the devise over applied to real as well as personal property, and was not confined to the bequests of the personal estate, immediately preceding this clause. It was also held that the devise over was good as an executory devise, and carried a fee, tliis limitation over neces- sarily referring to the estate before devised. Contingent limitation — Eemoteness — Virginia doctrine. — In Shultz V. Shultz, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 358 ; s.c. 60 Am. Dec. 335, it is said that a contingent limita- tion in a wOl made to depend upon a person dying un- married and without children, is not too remote under the Virginia statute, and cannot be regarded as a contingent limit- ation, made to depend on an indefinite failure of issue of children, but must be regarded as confined to the time of the death of the person or the stat- utory period of ten months thereafter. • Presley v. Davis, 7 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 105 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 396, See : Bell v. Scammon, 15 N. H 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706. 2 Downing v. Wherrin. 19 N. H. 9 s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 139 ; BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Shepard v. Shepard, 3 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 143 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 41. ^ Proprietors of Battle Square Church V. Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 143 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 735. See : Locke v. Barbour, 62 Ind. 577, 586 ; Levering v. Worthington, 106 Mass. 86, 88 ; Fosdick V. Fosdick, 88 Mass. (6 Allen) 41, 43 ; Smith V. Harrington, 86 Mass. (4 ' Allen) 566, 567 ; Sears v. RusseU, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 86, 94 ; Nightingale v. BurreU, 33 Mass. (15 Pick.) Ill ; Den ex d. TrumbuU v. Gibbons, 33 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 117 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec. 358 ; Shepard v. Shepard, 3 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 143 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 41; Cadell V. Palmer, 1 Q. & Find. 373, 431^33 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 367. ■" Battle Square Church v. Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 143 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 735. See : Tator v. Tator, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 431 ; Ferris v. Gibson, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 707 ; Conklin v. Conklin, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 64 ; Iililler V. Macomb, 36 Wend. (N. Y.) 339 ; Ring V. Hardwick, 3 Beav. 353 ; 324 DEVISE TO PERSON AND CHILDREN. [BOOK III. such a construction of the will defeats the manifest inten- tion of the testator ; for no principle is better settled than that the intention of the testator, however clear, must not be permitted to govern where it cannot be carried out without a violation of the well-known rules of law.^ Seo. 365. Same — Devise to a person and his children. — At com.m.on law, where lands were devised to a person and his children, and he had no children at the time of- the devise, the devisee took an estate- tail ; ^ if he had chil- Kampf V. Jones, 3 Keen 756 ; Busby •;;. Saulter, 2 Prest. Abs. 164; Attorney-General v. . Gill, 3 Pr. Wms. 369 ; Nottingham v. Jennings, 1 Pr. Wms. 33, 35 ; Purefoy v. Rogers, '3 Saund. 388a, 388b. ' Seers v. Russell, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 94, 97 ; Battle Square Church v. Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 143 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 735, 737. ' Coursey v. Davis, 46 Pa. St. 35 ; S.C. 84 Am. Dec. 519 ; Broadhurst v. Morris, 3 Bam. & Ad. 1 ; s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 1, over- ruling Jeffrey v. Honywood, 4 Madd. 398 ; affirmed sub nom. Byng V. Byng, 31 L. J. Ch. 470 ; Wild's Case, 6 Co. 16b. See : Carr v. Estill, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 309. Jeffrey v. Honywooi overruled. — Mr. Jarman says, in his v?ork on wills, vol. 3, page 371, that "the case of Jeffrey v. Hony- wood, 4 Madd. 398, seems to be inconsistent with, and must therefore be construed as over- iTiled by, the case of Broadhurst V. Morris, 3 Barn. & Aid. 1." And in the case of Webb v. Byng, 3 Kay & J. 669, Vice- Chancellor Wood says that the contention in that case was, ' ' that the devise was to the mother for life with remainder to her children as joint tenants in fee. The only authority for such a construction is the case of Jeffrey v. Honywood, 4 Madd. 398, and even that has been overruled by Broadhurst V. Morris, 3 Barn. & Aid. 1." Same — Distinguished. — In Cour- sey V. Davis, 46 Pa. St 05 ; s.c. 84 Am. Rep. 519, 533, it is said that "it is clear that Webb V. Byng, 3 Kay & J. 673, was decided upon the intention of the testatrix, which required the devise to be held to create an estate-taU, and it in no man- ner conflicts with the case of Jeffrey v. Honywood, 4 Madd. 398 ; nor does Broadhurst v. Morris, 2 Barn. & Adol. 1, which was a case where the father was not married until after the death of the testator." In arguing this case. Cowling said : " If the devise stopped at the words ' lawfully begotten forever,' the case would Le gov- erned lay the rule in Wild's Case, 6 Coke 16b, viz., that where lands are devised to a person and his children, and he has no child at the time of the devise, the parent takes an es- tate-tail ; " and so little was it supposed to interfere with Jef- freys. Honywood, 4 Madd. 398, that it was neither cited nor referred to by either Mr. Cowl- ing or Mr. Preston, both gentle- men of great learning and research. In Bowen v. Scow- croft, 3 Younge & C. 640, Mr. Campbell, in argument (p. 656), said : ' ' There is a total distinc- tion between this and Wild's Case, 6 Coke 16b. In that case the devise was to A and his children ; in the present the words are, ' to the children and their heirs.' This distinction was taken in Ives v. Legge, cited in 1 Feame on Rem. 377 ; and the principle was acted upon in Jeffrey v. Honywood, 4 Madd. 398. " Baron Aldekson (p. 661) adopted this construc- tion, and said ; " Lastly, as to Chap. VI. § 366.] "WHAT CHILDREN INCLUDED. 325 dren at the time, he took a Hfe estate and the children were vested with the fee in remainder. The effect of such a bequest in this country depends entirely upon the local statutory regulations. In the absence of any stat- utory regulations, the rules of the common law will apply. It has been held in Georgia that a bequest in that state to a woman, and to the children of her body, creates a joint estate in them, and not an estate-tail.^ In Kentucky it has been said that on a devise to a woman "and her children," she being unmarried and having no children at the time, where she afterwards marries and has children, confers upon her, under the statutes of that state, an estate for life with remainder to her children, and not an estate-tail, as in England.^ In New York, a devise to one for and during his natural life, and to the children of his body, lawfully begotten, to have and to hold unto the said devisee, for and during his natural life, and after his decease to the heirs of his body law- fully begotten, and to their heirs and assigns forever, gives a life-estate to the devisee with a remainder in fee to his children.^ Sec. 366. Same — Same — What children included. — A devise to one for life, and then to his children, will include all his children up to the time of his decease, whether born after the decease of the testator or not. Whenever the distribution among children is postponed to any particu- lar period by a will, all the children will be included who are in existence when such period arrives.* Lucy Bowen's share. It was ' Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) ontended as to this that she 503 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 716. lOok an estate-tail, having no * Thompson v. Garwood, 3 Whart. children at the time of the tes- (Pa.) 387 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 502. tator's death. But I think that The court in this case say that is not so, and that it is distiu- when the devise or gift to the guishable from Wild's Case, 6 children is general, and not Co. 16b, on the same grounds limited to a particular period, as were taken by Sir John it is then confined to the death Leach, in JefErey r. Honywood, of the testator. 4 Madd. 398. Indeed, on this Northey v. Burbage, Free. Ch. point of the case, Jeffrey v. 470 ; Honywood seems precisely in Heathe v. Heathe, 2 Atk. 121 ; point." Horsley v. Chaloner, 2 Ves. Sr. 83 ; ' Hoyle V. Jones, 35 Ga. 40 ; s.c. 89 Hodges v. Isaac, Amb. 348. Am. Deo. 273. But when such devise or gift is « Carr v. Estill, 16 B. Men. (Ky.) to one for life, or when the dis- 809 ; s.c. 63 Am. Deo. 548. tribution is postponed to a fut- 326 RESIDUARY CLAUSE IN WILL. [Book IIL Sec. 367. Same— Residuary clause carries foe when.— The residuary clause in a will must be given such a con- struction as will effectuate the intention of the testa- tor/ and a devise in general terms in this clause will carry the fee to real estate.^ The absence of a residuary clause in a will in which it was manifestly the intention of the testator to dispose of his whole estate has been allowed the effect of enlarging the devise into an estate in fee.^ ure time, then, children born during the life, or before the time of distribution, are let in. Harding v. Glynn, 1 Atk. 468, 470; Graves v. Boyle, 1 Atk. 509 ; Haughtonu. Harrison, 2 Atk. 329; Ellison V. Airey, 1 Ves. Sr. 111. ' See : Harper v. Blean, 3 "Watts (PaO 471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 267, 2 See: Harper v. Blean, 3 Watts (Pa.) 471 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 367 ; Ridout V. Paine, 3 Atk. 486, 488 ; TeiTel V. Page, 1 Ch. Cas. 262 ; Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 399 ; Chester v. Chester, 3 Pr. Wms. 56; TiUey v. Simpson, 2 T. R. 659 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 577 ; Grayson v. Atkinson, 1 Wils. 333. This rule is not restricted to wills alone, having been applied to deeds in Mc Williams v. Martin, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 269 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 688. 3 Shinn v. Holmes, 35 Pa. St. 142 ; Doe ex d. Harrington v. DUl, 1 Houst. (Del.) 398. CHAPTER VII. CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEVISE — continued. Sec. 368. Enlargement of devise. Sec. 369. Same — When estate not enlarged. Sec, 870. Same — Intent of testator — Construction by comparison. Sec. 371. Same — Same— Eeference to other devises in vrill. Sec. 372. Same — Introductory clause. Sec. 373. Same — Same — Words in introductory clause enlarging es- tate to fee. Sec. 374. Same— Conclusion of will— Intention of testator declared by. Sec. 375. Same — Where fee necessary to carry out intention of tes- tator. Sec. 376. Same— Estates in trust. Sec. 377. Same — Use devisee is to make of lands. Sec. 378. Same — By implication — Control over lands. Sec. 379. Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule. Sec. 880. Same — Charge on devisee. Sec. 381. Same — ^ame — Nature of charge on devisee. Sec. 383. Same — Same — Reason for the rule. Sec. 883. Same — Same — Failure or refusal to perform Sec. 384. Same — Where charge on the estate. Sec. 385. Cutting down fee. Sec. 386. Same — Fee not cut down when. S^c. 387. Same — Doctrine of the American courts^-Jackson v. Bull. Sec. 388. Same — Same — Doctrine of Smith v. BeU. Sec. 389. Statutory regulations. Sec. 890. Construction of devises since the statutes. Section 368. Enlargement of devise.— In the construc- tion of a will the intention of the testator is the object of inquiry, and must govern where not contrary to the established rules of law/ and this intention is not to be 1 Wright V. Hicks, 12 Ga. 155 ; s.c. Church v. Grant, 69 Mass. (8 56 Am. Deo. 451; Gray) 142; s.c. 63 Am. Dec.725; Wynne v. Wynne, 28 Miss. 251 ; Montgomery v. Millikin, 5 Smed. s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 139 ; &M. (13 Miss.) 151 ; s.c. 43 Am. Armorer v. Case, 9 La. An. 288 ; Deo. 507 ; s.c. 61 Am. Dec. 209; German v. German, 27 Pa. St. Proprietors of Battle Square 116 ; s.c. 67 Am. Deo. 451 ; 327 328 ENLARGEMENT OF DEVISE. [Book III. defeated simply because the testator fails to clothe his ideas in technical language.^ A devise without words of limitation may be enlarged to a fee-simple by the use of words which have been held to be equivalent to a devise in fee, which we have heretofore referred to specifically.^ The rules of the common law which govern in respect to the quantity of interest conveyed by a will do not apply in these states where by statutory provision an estate in lands, created by will, is deemed to be an estate in fee-simple, unless a less estate is limited by express words.^ Sec. 369. Same— when estate not enlarged.— We have al- ready seen * that a limitation to heirs on failure to ap- point has the effect of enlarging a life estate into a fee- simple ; ^ but where a life estate only is given, followed by a general power of appointment ; and on failure to ap- point, the children, or specified donees in remainder, take by purchase, and not by way of limitation as heirs of the cestui que trust ; ^ and where an express estate for Baskin's Appeal, 3 Pa. St. 304; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 604 ; Stoner's Appeal, 2 Pa. St. 428 ; S.C. 45 Am. Dec. 608. See : Ante, § 345. • BeU Co. V. Alexander, 22 Tex. 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Deo. 368. Inartistic language — "Give and be- cause." — In the case of John- son V. Johnson's Widow, 1 Mmif . (Va.) 549, the wiU of the testator was expressed in most inartistic language, reading "I give and because . . . And 120 acres, . . . one cow, one calf," etc.; and the court held that the testator evidently being an illiterate person and using the same words to designate the desire to bequeath his real as well as his personal property, that his evident intention was to give an absolute interest in both, and that a fee-simple would be taken in the land. Same — "land in the county I am buried in." — In the case of Bell Co. V. Alexander, 22 Tex. 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 268, it was held that in a will, by em- ploying the words ' ' I wish the county in which I die and am buried to have and enjoy, for the benefit of public schools, two-thirds of the land in the county I am buried in," taken in connection with the words "my land" and "the land I own," used in other parts of the will, show an intention on the part of the testator to devise an estate in lands, and there being no words limiting its quantity, will be held to convey an estate in fee-simple. « See : Ante, 8§ 351-353. ' BeU Co. V. Alexander, 22 Tex. 350 ; S.C. 73 Am. Dec. 368. See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ; S.c. 57 Am. Deo. 634 ; 1 Am. L. Reg. 227 ; McClure v. Douthitt, 3Pa. St. 446. * See : Ante, § 359. = See : Ralston v. Wain, 44 Pa. St. 279; Nice's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 148; Physiok's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 128. «Dodson V. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 492; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 586. See : Gerard Life Ins. & Trust Co. V. Chambers, 46 Pa. St. 490 ; s.c: 86 Am. Dec. 518 : Chap. VII. § 370.] CONSTRUCTION BY COMPARISON 329 life is given in trust and the remainder is not to heirs or issue generally, a power of appointment will not enlarge the estate to a fee.^ Sec. 370. Samo — Intention .of testator — Construction by comparison.— It is a well-established rule of law that de- vises and legacies in a will' may receive a character by construction and comparison with other legacies and de- vises in the same will, different from the literal and direct effect of the words made use of in such devise ; ^ and this is true because the sole duty of the court, in giving a construction, is to ascertain the real intent and meaning of the testator ; ^ which can better be gathered by adverting to the whole scope of the provisions made by him for the objects of his bounty, than by confining attention to one isolated paragraph, probably drawn up without a knowledge of technical words, or without recollecting the advantage of using them.* Where a reading of the whole will produces a conviction that the testator must necessarily have intended an interest to be given which is not bequeathed by express and formal words, the court must supply the defect by implication, and so mold the language of the testator as to carry into effect, as far as possible, the intention which it is of opin- ion that he has on the whole will sufficiently declared.^ Thus when a devise made to a son without words of in- heritance, and a legacy is left to the children of a deceased son, " which (legacy) is his proportion of the estate," and from the preamble of the will there is a manifest inten- tion on the part of the testator to make a disposal of the entire estate, the devise to the son will be construed Smith V. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 62, ^ See : Phelps v. Phelps, 143 Mass. 66 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ; 570, 574 ; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. Anderson v. Dawson, 15 Yes. 452 ; 533 . Metoalf v. Farmingham Pansli, 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 668. 128 Mass. 370 ; ' See : Springer v. Arundel, 64 Pa Cook v. Holmes, 11 Mass. 528. St 228 ; 531. Dodson V. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 492 ; ■" Cook v. Hobnes, 11 Mass. 528, s o 100 Am. Dec. 586 ; 531. WiiUams's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 388. « Phelps v. Phelps, 143 Mass. 570, « Cook V. Holmes, 11 Mass. 528, 574 ; 53]^ . Metcalf v. Farmmgham Parish, Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 128 Mass. 370, 374. 334 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 66. 330 REFERENCE TO OTHER DEVISES. [BOOK III. to be a fee-simple, because otherwise the children of the deceased son would receive more than their father's pro- portion, which was all the testator intended to give them, as such intention is discovered from the will.^ Sec. 3Y1 . Same— same— Reference to other devises in will.— In a case where the devise under consideration refers to another devise in the same will, and expresses an intent that the devisees should be equally benefited, if the legal construction of the other devise carries a fee, as in the case of Cook v. Holmes,^ the law will supply the omitted words of inheritance.^ The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts say, in the case of Baker v. Bridge/ that, " by the general terms of this will, all the propertj' given to each son or daughter and their children, taken together, was to be estimated in the division among the four branches. For this purpose the life estate to Nathan Bridge, together with a remainder to his chil^ dren, being estimated and charged in the division at the value of the whole estate in fee, it follows conclusively that it was the intent of the testator that such remainder to the children should be a remainder in fee." ^ Sec. 372. same— introductory clause.— Where the inten- tion of the testator is ambiguous and does not manifest what that purpose was as to the intent regarding the ex- tent of the estate in a devise, the introductory words or preamble are to be considered in order to ascertain the intention of the testator.^ If this clause of itself be suflBcient to give a fee, the intention expressed therein is always carried down to the devising clauses to show the interest, and may have the effect of enlarging the estate • See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. (3 < 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 27, 33. Greenl.) 239 ; ^ If this view of the apportionment Clayton v. Clayton, 3 Binn. (Pa.) and valuation be correct, the 476 ; case is brought clearly within Hall V. Dickinson, 1 Grant Cas. theauthorityof Cook i;. Holmes, (Pa.) 340. 11 Mass. 528, which was rec- ^ 11 Mass. 528. ognized in the late case of ' Farrar v. Ayres, 33 Mass. (5 Pick.) Farrar v. Ayres, 32 Mass. (5 404, 408. Pick.) 404. See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. (3 " Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ; Greenl.) 339 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 Am. Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12 L.' Reg. 327. Pick.) 33. Chap. VII. § 372.] INTEODUCTOEY CLAUSE. 331 to a fee.^ The introductory clause, where one is inserted in a will, does not so far attach itself to a subsequent de- vising clause as per se to enlarge the latter to a fee, where the words would not ordinarily import it.^ The most that can be said is, that where the words of a devise admit of passing a greater interest than for life, courts will lay hold of the introductory clause, to assist them in ascertaining the intention of the testator.^ The intention 1 Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. (Pd.) 3tf6 ; S.C. 11 Am. Dec. 610. See: Franklin v. Harter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 488 ; Butler V. Little, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.) 239; WiQchester v. TUghman, 1 Harr. & McH. (Md.) 453 ; Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ; Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. y.) 185, 191 ; S.C. 5 Am. Dec. 213 ; Fox V. Phelps, 17 "Wend. (N. Y.) 393 ; s.c. 20 Id. 437 ; Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 Am. L. Reg. 227 ; McCoUough V. Gilmoro, 11 Pa. St. 370 ; Johnson v. Morton, 10 Pa. St. 245; Harden v. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151 ; Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140 ; Miller v. Douthitt, 3 Pa. St. 443 ; French v. McIIhenny, 2 Bimi. (Pa.) 13 ; Campbell v. Carson, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 54 ; Doughty V. Browne, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 179 ; Caldwell v. Ferguson, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 250, 280 ; Watson V. PoweU, 3 Call (Va.) 265, 306 ; Wyatt V. Sadler's Heirs, 2 Munf. (Va.) 537 ; Kennon v. McRoberts, 1 Wash. (Va.)96; Busby V. Busby, 1 U. S. (1 Dal.) 226 ; bk. 1 L. ed. Ill ; Frogmorton v. Holday, 3 Burr. 1, 618; s.c. 3W. Bl. 889; Denn v. Gaskin, 1 Cowp. 660 ; Loveacres v. Blight, 1 Cowp. 533. Introductory clause — Judge Cowen's comments. — In speaking of the introductory clause, manifest- ing an intention to dispose of the entire estate of the testator, Judge Cowen says in this case that " no case holds that simply connected with the words freely to be enjoyed, etc. , the whole wlU carry a fee. To do this where there are no words of express limitation, all the cases agree that the will should contain some provision in respect to the land, neces- sarily inconsistent with the estate being for life. Freely to be enjoyed, etc., may come much short of this." His honor pointed out that in Denn ex d. Gaskin v. Gaskin, Cowp. 657, and Wright ex d. Shaw v. Russell, Cowp. 660, a disinher- iting legacy had been given to the heir at law, and that the authority of the cases had been weakened by the opinions and comments of Lord Ellen- borough and Le Blanc and Dkeuby, JJ., iuGoodright ex d. Drewry v. Barron, 11 East 320. = Such a doctrine would be repug- nant to the modern as well as ancient authorities. See : Wright v. Denn, 33 IT. S. (10 Wheat.) 304, 338; bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310 ; Merson v. Blackmore, 3 Atk. 341; Denn v. Gaskin, 2 Cowp. 660 ; Doe V. Allen, 8 Durnf . & E. 497 ; Doe V. Wright, 8 Durnf. & E. 64; Right V. Sidebotham, 2 Dougl. 759; Frogmorton v. Wright, 2 W. Bl. 889 ; s.c. 3 Burr. 618. 8 Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 33 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 328, 333 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310, 319. Introductory clause — When re- sorted to. — It is said by Chan- cellor Dbssaustjrb, in Waring V. Middleton, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. 249, in speaking of the intro- ductory clause that " one of the 332 INTENTION FROM INTRODUCTION. [Book III. to dispose of the entire estate being shown in the intro- ductory clause, it will determine the court to decide an estate to be enlarged to a fee, in a case where there exists in the devise expressions which, taken in connection with the words in such introductory clause, tend to show an intent on the part of the testator to devise a fee, but which, taken by themselves, would not be considered as showing with sufficient clearness an intention to give such an estate. Particularly is this the case where, if the doubtful devise were construed as giving a life estate only, the testator would have died intestate as to part of his property.^ Sec. 373. Same— Same— "Words in introductory clause en- larging estate to fee.— Where there are no words of limita- tion in the instrument, courts resort to other parts of the will in order to ascertain from them the intention of the testator, and the fee is frequently held to be conveyed by implication ; but this is done only to supply defects of ex- pression.^ Among those words or phrases which, when scales must have been inclining downward, or no use can effect- ively be made of it." And in the case of Steele v. Tliompson, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 84, Chief Justice TiLGHMAN says regard- ing introductory clauses : " There have been various opinions concernitig the infer- ences which may be drawn from the introduction of a wiU, where it exj^resses an intent to dispose of the whole estate. In connection with other circum- stances, such an introduction may be worthy of consideration, but the better opinion seems to be, that there is not much in it, because it is generally consid- ered by the drawer of the will as matter of form, and put down before he begins to express the wiU of the testator ; and be- cause it cannot be doubted that most men, when they make their wiUs, do intend to dispose of their whole estate, whether they say so or not." Steele v. Tliompson criticised. — The latter case is criticised in Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87; s.o. 57 Am. Dec. 634: 1 Am. L. Reg. 227, in which it is said that " the case of Steele- v. Thompson is an exceptional case, in opposition to prior ones, attempting to overrule one of them." ' Beall V. Holmes, 6 Harr. & J. (Md.) 205, 210 ; Butler V. Little, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.) 239; Harvey v. Olmsted, 1 N. Y. 483 ; s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 102 ; Van Derzee v. Van Derzee, 36 N. Y. 331 ; s.c. 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 331 ; affirming Jackson v. Harris, 8 John. (N. Y.) 141 ; Hogan V. Andrews, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 452 ; Barheydt v. Barheydt, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 576 ; Fox V. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 393 * Rupp'i). Eberly, 79 Pa. St. 141 ; Mclntyrow. Ramsey,33Pa.St.317; Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 268 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 610; Lippett V. Hopkins, 1 Gall. C. C. 454, 455 ; Lessee of Ferguson ■;;. Zepp, 4 Wash. C. C. 645. ■" BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Deo. 706, 708. Chap. VII. § 373.] INTRODUCTION ENLARGING ESTATE. 333 used in the introductory clause or preamble of a will, in connection with words in doubtful devising clauses, have been held to manifest an intention to dispose of the tes- tator's entire estate, and have been construed to enlarge the estate given to the devisee into a fee-simple, are the following: "all my temporary estate;"^ "all my worldly substance and property shall be disposed of in the following manner ; " ^ "as for such estate ... I give the same in the following manner ; " ^ " as to such worldly es- tate wherewith it hath pleased God to bless me in this life, I give and dispose of the same in the following manner ; " * " as to my worldly estate,^ I dispose of it as follows ; " ® See : Stevens v. Winthrop, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 326 ; s.o. Am. Doc. 178 ; Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. 175; Tannery). Livingston, 12 "Wend. (N. Y.)83, 95; Doe V. Fyldes, Cowp. 841. 1 Watson V. Powell, 3 Call (Va.) 265, 306. 2 McCoUough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 370. See : Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. St. 144 ■ Wood'i). Hills, 19 Pa. St. 515 ; Hall V. Dickinson, 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 241 ; s.c. 2 Phila. (Pa.) 133 • Smith V. Schriver, 3 Wall. Jr. C. C. 219, 226. Carrying words down to corpus. — The court say in the case of McCollough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 370, that " these words, and the like of them, are generally carried down into the corpus of the will to show that the testator meant to dispose of his whole interest and in a par- ticular devise, unless words are used which plainly indicate an intent to limit." See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634, 637 ; 1 Am. L. Reg. 227, 232. " French v. Mcllhenny, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 13. See : Jolmson v. Morton, 10 Pa. St. 345 ; Campbell v. Carson, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 54 ; ^ „ Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 289 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 610. ■> Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 Am. L. Reg. 337. Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140. "As to my worldly estate." — In Peppard v. Deal, supra, in speaking of the devise of a house and the words " as to my worldly estate," the court say : "The language in the intro- duction is carried down to the devising clause, to explain the intent." In Harden v. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151, the court say : "It is very evident, from the intro- ductory clause, that the testa- tor had no intention to die in- testate, but that in this case, as in almost all others, he supposed he was devising his whole estate." Where a testator pro- posed to make a will ' ' as touch- ing such worldly estate " and then devised to his wife all his lands by her " freely to be pos- sessed and enjoyed," the court held that she took his life estate only. Wheatonv. Andress, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 452. « McCIure v. Douthitt, 3 Pa. St. 446. In this case the court say " that we should liave done at first in regard to words of inheritance what our Legislature has done at last by declaring every de- vise to be a fee which is not specially to be restricted." Words in preamWe — Brought down to show intent. — In Miller V. Lynn, 7 Pa. St. 443, the court, in speaking of similar words, say: "The 334. CONCLUSION OF WILL— INTENT. [Book HI. "estate;"^ "my estate ;"2 "my worldly affairs ;"3 "my worldly estate;"* "temporal case;"^ "touch- ing my worldly effects, real and personal, I dispose thereof in the following manner ; " ^ " touching such worldly estate, I give the same in the following man- ner ; " ^ " worldly effects, both real and personal ; " ^ "worldly goods,'' ^ and the like. Sec. 374. Same— Conclusion of -will— intention of testator declared by.— The courts will not only go to the introduc- tory clause for indicia of intent on the part of the tes- tator to dispose of his entire property, to enlarge the estate given to a fee, but will look to the conclusion also, where a doubtful devise, without words of limitation, is followed by a clause which unmistakably shows that the testator thought he had disposed of all his property. Thus, in Davies v. Miller,^" where the testator, at the con- clusion of the instrument, said: "This is my will, and the way I desire my estate to be disposed of," the court held that a fee passed. Sec. 375. Same — Wliere fee necessary to carry out inten- tion of testator.- Where the words of a devise, according to their natural and fair import, construed in connection with all other parts of the will, manifestly show that it words m. the preamble mate heldtobeafee-sim^ple ; andthis it apparent that he intended to is carrying out the intention of dispose of his whole estate. the testator ninety-nine cases Although, therefore, there are out of one hundred. Here the no words of limitation or per- word estate in the introduction petuity added to the devise to was coupled with the devising the children, yet as there is clause exactly as in this case — no limitation over, we bring " I give and dispose the same down the w^ord ' estate ' in the as follows." preamble and connect it with ' Walker v. Walker, 28 Pa. St. 40. the devise in order to effectu- ^ Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140. ate the intent." ^ Goodrich v. Harding, 3 Eand. See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. (Va.) 280. St. 87 ; s.o. 57 Am. Dec. 634, ' Dougherty v. Browne, 4 Yeates 636 ; 1 Am. L. Eeg. 227, 231. (Pa.) 179. ^ See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. ' Calwell v. Ferguson, 3 Teates St. 87 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 (Pa.) 250, 280. Am. L. Eeg. 227. ^Doughtyy. Browne, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 2 Davis V. MiUer, 1 Call (Va.) 127. 179. " Estate • — Coupled with devise ' Wyatt v. Saddler's Heirs, 1 Munf . carries fee. — In this case the (Va.) 537 ; court say that when the word Kennon v. McEoberts, 1 Wahs. estate is coupled with a devise (Va.) 96 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 438. of real estate, it is uniformly i» 1 CaU (Va.) 137. Chap. VII. § 376.] ESTATES IN TRUST. 335 was the intention of the testator to give an estate in fee ; and where the general purpose to the particular intent of the testator, as expressed in or gathered by fair or plain implication from the will itself, cannot be carried into effect without such construction, whatever may be the words in which the devise is expressed, the law holds that it passes an estate in fee.^ Thus, where a testator gives his whole estate, interest, or property, in such words as go not merely to describe the land itself, but the extent of his interest therein ; or where a devise is made on con- dition that the devisee pay a sum of money, or an an- nuity or other charge,^ and where the devise might be onerous and not beneficial unless the devisee should take the whole interest, that is an estate in fee ; or where the devise is of the' remainder or reversion subject to a prior life estate, under such circumstances that, without the devisee take a fee, the devise might not be beneficial.^ Sec. 376. Same— Estates in trust.— At common law an estate in lands created by devise will be enlarged to and held to be an estate in fee-simple, where the land is charged with a trust which cannot be performed, or where the will directs an act to be done which cannot be accomplished, unless a greater estate than one for life be taken.* Trustees take exactly that quantity of interest ' Kelloeff V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met. ) Abbott v. Essex Co. , 3 Curt. C. C. 333, 325 ; 136, 132 ; s.o. 59 U. S. (18 How.) Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. 308 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 353. (18 Pick.) 537, 539 ; s.c. 39 Am. ' See : Post, § 380. Dec. 631 ; ' Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12 Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (13 Pick.) 27, 31 ; Pick.) 37, 30, 31 ; Norton v. Ladd, 1 Lutw. 763 ; Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Bailis v. Gale, 3 Ves. Sr. 48. Y ) 193. See : Kellogg v. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 See : Lindsay v. McCormack, 3 Met.) 333, 326 ; A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 229 ; s.c. 13 Wait v. Belding, 41 Mass. (24 Am. Dec. 387 ; Pick.) 129, 138, 139. Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 173 ; " Kirkland v. Cox, 94 111. 400 ; Spooner v.Lovejoy, 108 Mass.532; Pearce v. Savage, 45 Me. 90 ; Bacon v. Woodward, 78 Mass. (13 Deering v. Adams, 37 Me. 364 ; Gray) 379 ; Inman v. Jackson, 4 Me. 337 ; Putnam v. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 Bell Co. v. Alexander, 33 Tex. Met.) 333 ; 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 368 : Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Hardy v. Redman's Adm'r, 3 Cr. Met.) 138 ; C. C. 635 ; Jenkins u Clement, 1 Harp. (S. Gibson w. Montfort, 1 Ves. Sr. 485: C^ Ea 73; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. Poad r". Watson, 37 Eng. L. & Eq. 698: 113. 33G USE TO BE MADE OF LANDS. [Book III. in the estate devised wliich the purposes of the trust require ; ^ and in the absence of any express limitation, sufficient to carry the legal inheritance, the estate of the trustee may be enlarged and extended into such an in- terest as the nature of the trust may require.^ Whether trustees take a legal estate or not depends chiefly on the fact whether the testator has imposed on the trustees a trust or duty, the performance of which requires that the legal estate should be vested in them.^ But where an express estate for life is given in trust, and the remainder is to heirs or issue generally, a power of appointment will not enlarge the estate to a fee.* Sec. 377. Same— Use devisee is to make of lands. — An estate created by will ixiay be enlarged to an estate in fee-simple by the use to which the lands are to be put, or the necessities of the case. Thus at common law an estate in lands will be enlarged to and held to be an estate in fee-simple where the will directs an act to be done which cannot be accomplished unless a greater estate than a life estate be taken. ^ Hence where the words used in a will imply a life estate only, and limiting the quantity of interest devised to such an estate would manifestly defeat the intention of the testator, the estate will be enlarged to a fee." Thus a fee-simple passes with- out words of inheritance in a devise if the testator, not having perfected his title, evinces an intention that the devisee shall take the same in his own name from the government ; "^ and a devise of wild uncultivated lands, ' Mui-dook V. Johnson, 7 Coldw. Ellis v. Fisher, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) (Tenn.) 611 ; 231 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 53. Williamson v. Wickersham, 3 * Williams's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 388 ; Coldw. (Tenn.) 55 ; Springer v. Arundel, 64 Pa. St. Harding v. St. Louis Life Ins. Co. , 323 ; 3 Coop. Ch. (Tenn.) 468 ; Dodson v. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 493 ; Hooberry v. Harding, 10 Lea s.c. 100 Am. Deo. 586. (Tenn.) 397 ; » BeU Co. v. Alexander, 23 Tex. Henderson v. Hill, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Deo. 368. 33 ; " Benesoh v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ; Tuiiey v. MassengiU, 7 Lea Burleigh ■;;. Clough, 53 N. H. 367 (Tenn.) 356 ; 374 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 23 ; Ellis V. Fisher, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) Second Pres. Church v. Disbrow, 831 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 52. 53 Pa. St. 319 ■ '■ Ellis V. Fisher, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 319. 331 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 53. ' Lindsay v. MoCormack, 3 A. K 3 Hooberry v. Harding, 3 Coop. Marsh. (Ky.) 399; s.c. 13 Am Ch. (Tenn.) 680 ; Dec. 387. Chap. VII. § 378.] FEE BY IMPLICATION. 337 covered with woods, carries a fee-simple without words of inheritance,^ on the principle that the devise is always intended by the devisor to be for the benefit of the devisee,^ and a life estate in wild lands cannot be con- sidered of any value, because the devisee would not receive, nor could he obtain, any benefit whatever from the land. He cannot cut down the trees, from the sale of which the chief, if not the only, value of wild lands arises, because he would be liable to the remainderman for waste. No one would undertake to bring into a state of cultivation wild lands, where his estate might be terminated before he should be reimbursed his labor and expenses.^ Sec. 378. Same — By implication— Control over land.— A devise for hfe without words of limitation may be en- larged into an estate in fee-simple by implication (1) by the use of words equivalent to a devise in fee,* or (2) from the control given over the land. A devise with power of ab- solute disposition, unless a life estate is expressly limited to the devisee, passes a fee by implication. ° An estate given by a general devise, without words of limitation, will not be enlarged to a fee-simple by the addition of the power of disposal ; but a devise for life expressly, with a power of disposition, gives to the devisee simply a life estate with a power annexed.^ Thus a general devise, ' RusseU V. Elden, 15 Me. 193 ; the estate of the devisee is not Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303 enlarged. Holmes v. Pattison, 25 Pa. St. Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513 ; 484. Doe v. Howland, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) ■' Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303. 377 ; See : Farrar v. Ayres, 23 Mass. (5 Jackson v. Robins, 16 John. (N. Pick.) 404, 409. Y.) 588 ; ' See : Russell v. Elden, 15 Me. 193 ; Doe ex d. Thorley v. Thorley, 10 Ridgway v. Parker, 10 Mass. 305; East 438 ; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 352 ; Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303 ; distinguished in Humble v. Caldwell V. Ferguson, 2 Yeates Bowman, 47 L. J. Ch. 62, 64 ; (Pa.) 380. Tomlinson v. Dighton, 1 Pr. Wms. * TaggartV Murray, 53 N. Y. 333, Bradly v. Westoott, 13 Ves. 445 ; 338. s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 207. Power of disposition limited on event. « Funk v. Eggleston, 93 III. 515 ; s.c. —But where a power of dis- 34 Am. Rep. 136. _„,„,, position bywiU is given and See: Fairmanw. Beal 14 111. 344 ; limited upon the event of the Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ; devisee "leaving no heirs,' Andrews v. Brumfield, 44 Miss, and also no disposition by will, 49, 57 ; 22 338 CONTROL OVER LANDS— CARRIES FEE. [Book III. to use and dispose of as the devisee may please, will be enlarged into a fee-simple, notwithstanding a devise over on the first devisee's death; ^ also a devise to be "at her entire disposal, " even though there be a devise over after the death of the first taker ;2 or "for her sole and ab- solute use and disposal, " without anything to qualify the words ; ^ or to be disposed of at the pleasure of the devisee;* or "to be fully possessed and enjoyed;"^ or "to give and sell at his pleasure ; " ^ "to give away at her death to whom she pleases ;"'' "to use and dispose of at her pleasure,"* all pass a fee. A devise of lands with power to the devisee to dispose of while she survives, and any disposition she may make at her death to be duly and strictly attended to, and stand good in law, gives a fee.* A devise to a person "so long as she continues my widow ; but if she marry no more than the law allows ; but if she continues my widow, she is to hold, enjoy, or dispose of at her discretion as I do at present," gives a fee determinable on marriage-^" But a bequest of real estate to a devisee to have and to hold during life, and " to do with as the devisee sees proper before death," gives but a life estate in the land.^^ Dean v. Nunnally, 36 Miss. 358 ; John. (N.Y.) 391. Rail«. Dotson, 33Miss. (14Smed. = Campbell v. Carson, 13 Serg. & & M.) 183 ; R. (Pa.) 54. Bryant v. Christian, 58 Mo. 98 ; " Freely possessed and enjoyed " Rubey v. Barnett, IS Mo. 3 ; s.o. — Ccmstrtiction of phrase. — In 49 Am. Dec. 113 ; this case the Supreme Court Downey v. Borden, 36 N. J. L. (7 of Pennsylvania adopted the Vr.) 74, 460 ; meaning given to every enjoy- Jaokson v. Robins, 16 John. (N. ment by Lord Mansfield, in Y.) 588 ; Loveaores v. Blight, 1 Cowp. Smith V. Fulkinson, 35 Pa. St. 853, where he held that the 109 ; absolute estate passed free Flinthan's Appeal, 11 Serg. & R. from impeachment every waste (Pa.) 18. from incumbrances, rejecting ' Benkert v. Jaooby, 36 Iowa 373. the meaning given in later » McLean v. MacDonald, 3 Barb. (N. English cases. Y.) 534 ; 8 Whiskon v. Cleyton, 1 Leon. 156. Jackson v. Babcock, 13 John. (N. ' Timewell v. Perkins, 3 Atk. 103. Y.) 389, 393 ; 8 Jackson ex d. Bush v. Coleman, McDonald v. Walgrove, 1 Sandf. 3 John. (N. Y.) 891 ; Ch. (N. Y.) 374. Sutton v. Robertson, F. Moore 56; 3 Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513. Goodtitle v. Otway, 3 Wils. 6. Or "to be at the absolute dis- "Moore v. Webb, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) posal" of the devisee. 383. Jackson v. Babcock, 13 John. (N. " Swope v. Swope, 5 Gill (Md.) 335. Y.) 389, 393. See : Ante, § 306. * Jackson ex d. Bush v. Coleman, 3 " Brant v. The Virginia Coal &Iron Chap. VII. §§ 379, 380.] EXCEPTIONS TO RULE. 339 Sec. 379. Same— Same— Exceptions to the rule.— An ex- press devise for life will not be enlarged to a fee by the mere addition of the power of sale ; ^ and the addition of the power of disposition of the power to re-invest the proceeds without accountability will not enlarge a plain life estate into a fee-simple.^ Where the testator gives property to his wife " to and for her own use and dis- posal absolutely," with remainder after her decease to his son, the wife took a life estate only ; ^ in a devise of lands " to be at her own disposal and for her own proper use and benefit during her natural life," the words " dur- ing her natural life " restrict the power of disposal to such a disposition as a tenant for life could make.* Sec. 380. Same— Where charge on devisee.— A testator may devise lands with a view to legacies, or the payment of debts, and m.ake them a charge on the land, or on the person of the devisee, or on both.^ Where the charge is on the person of the devisee in respect to the estate in his Co., 93 U. S. 336 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 927 ; S.C. 16 Am. L. Reg. 403. See : Boyd v. Strahan, 36 lU. 355 ; Giles V. Little, 104 U. S. 291 ; bk. 76 L. ed. 745 : Bradly v. Westoott, 18 Ves. 449. To widow for life, with power of disposition. — In Brant v. Vir- ginia Coal & Iron Co., 93 U. S. 326 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 927 ; s.c. 16 Am. L. Reg. 403, the words of the wUl were : '• I give and be- queath to my beloved wife, Nancy Sinclair, all my estate, both real and personal, that is to say, all my lands, cattle, horses, sheep, farming utensils, household and kitchen furni- ture, with everything that I possess, to have and to hold during her life, and to do with as she sees proper before her death." By virtue of this power, the widow undertook to convey the fee of the land. But this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Field, said : " Tlie in- terest conveyed by the devise to the widow was only a life estate. The language admits of no other conclusion ; and the accompanying words, ' to do with as she sees proper before her death,' only conferred power to deal with the prop- erty in such manner as slie might choose, consistently with that estate and perhaps without liability for waste committed. The words used in connection with a conveyance of a lease- hold estate would never be understood as conferring a power to sell the property so as to pass a greater estate. What- ever power of disposal the words confer is limited by the estate with which they are connected." > Maltby's Appeal, 47 Conn. 349 ; Lewis V. Palmer, 46 Conn. 454 ; Dean v. NunnaUy, 36 Miss. 358 ; Sawyer v. Dozier, 7 Jones (N. C.) L. 7. ' Cockrill V. Money, 2 Tenn. Ch. 49. ' Smith V. BeU, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 68 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 233. See criticism of this case: Post, 8 336. ■• Boyd V. Strahan, 36 111. 355. '■ Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 23 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 206 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 309. See : Roe ex d. Peter v. Day, 3 Maul. & S. 518. 340 CHARGE ON DEVISEE. [Book III. hands, he takes a fee-simple, even where there are no words of inheritance or perpetuity ; ^ as where the devisee is to pay debts, ^ or certain specified legacies,^ or a gross sum out of the estate,* and the hke. And it has been said that a charge upon a devisee in respect to the whole of a piece of land, of which he receives a portion and another person another portion, may have the effect of 1 Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.) 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 321. See : Lindsay v, McOormack, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 229 ; s.c. 12 Am. Dec. 381 ; Parker w. Parker, 47 Mass. (6 Met.) 134, 138 ; Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 27, 31 ; Lummus v. Mitchell, 34 N. H. 39, 47; Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706; Leavitt v. Wooster, 14 H. H. 550 ; Olmstead v. Ohnstead, 4 N. Y. 56, 58 ; Heard v. Horton, 1 Denn. (N. Y.) 165; 8.C. 43 Am. Dec. 569; Jackson v. Staats, 11 John. (N. Y.) 837 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 376 ; Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 218 ; Spraker'y.Van Alstyne, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 200 ; Fox V. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 393; Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 578 ; Findlay v. Smith, 6 Mtinf. (Va.) 184 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733 ; Doe V. Clarke, 2 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 343; Moor V. Denn, 2 Bos. & P. 247 Doe V. SnelUng, 5 East 87 ; Groodtitle v. Maddern, 4 East 496; Doe V. Holmes, 8 T. R. 1 ; Collier's Case, 6 Co. 16. * See : Bell v. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Heard ■;;. Horton, 1 Denn. (N. Y.) 165 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 659 ; Jackson •;;. Martin, 18 John. (N. Y.) 31 ; Jackson v. MerriU, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213; Goodtitle v. Maddern, 4 East 496 ; Phihps V. Hele, 1 Rep. Ch. 101 ; Doe V. Holmes, 8 T. R. 1 ; Corner's Case, 6 Co. 16. ' See : Lithgow v. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. 161, 175 ; BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Jones' Ex'rsv. Jones, 13 N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 236 ; Olmstead v. Olmstead, 4 N. Y. 56, 58 ; Jackson v. Harris, 8 John. (N. Y.) 141; Spraker?;. Van Alstyne, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 200 ; Coane v. Parmentier, 10 Pa. St. 73; Doe ex d. Thorn v. Phillips, 3 Barn. & Ad. 758 ; s.c. 33 Eng. C. L. 380 ; Doe V. Richards, 3 T. R. 856 ; Ackland v. Ackland, 2 Vem. 687. Nature of estate devised. — When a testator devised his lands as follows: "To my grandson, William Wheeler, his heirs and assigns, forever, on condition that he pay to my grand- daughter, Hannah Wheeler, two hundred pounds old tenor bills, when he arrives at lawful age ; but in case said WiUiam dies without issue lawfully be- gotten of his body, then I give said lands and house to my six sons-in-law and my grand- daughter, Hannah Wheeler, to be equally divided between them," it was held that the devise over was an absolute estate. Holmes v. Williams, 1 Root (Conn.) 835; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 49. ' See : Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185; S.C. 5 Am. Dec. 218; Willis V. Buoher, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 455 ; Doe V. Fyldes, Cowp. 841 ; Collier's Case, 6 Co. 16. A general devise to pay a gross sum out of the estate devised does not carry a fee. Funk V. Eggleston, 93 lU. 517 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 136. Chap. VII. §§ 381, 382.1 NATURE OF CHARGE. 34I enlarging the estates of both devisees to fees, as in the case of Barheydt v. Barheydt,^ where the devise of the "upper half " of certain land to A and the "lower half " to A's minor son, on condition that A paid certain legacies, was held to give an estate in fee to both A and his son. Sec. 381. Same— Same— Nature of charge on devisee.— Where there is a devise of lands with directions that the devisee shall pay a gross sum out of it, the de- visee takes an estate in fee, without any other words, notwithstanding the fact that the sum to be paid may not amount to a year's rent.^ The charge upon the devisee may not be a direct money charge, but the impo- sition in obligation or duty, such as to provide firewood or grain for the support of the person designated,^ edu- cate a minor,* allow the use of a room in a house devised to the testator's widow, ^ surrender a claim to an expect- ancy,^ and the like. Sec. 382. Same— Same— Reason for tlie doctrine.— This rule is founded on the well-known principle that the devise is intended for the benefit of the devisee,^ and if ' 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 500, 576. Education and support of a child 2 Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) — Ho trust or charge. — A resid- 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 313. uary devise and bequest to the Amount of charge — Time of pay- testator's wife, " to her own ment — Contingency. — The ef- use, and to be disposed of at feet upon the estate of the lier decease according to the charge upon the devisee will terms of any will that she may not be interfered with by the leave," vests the whole of the fact that such charge is a very residue in her absolutely ; and small amount (Jackson v. Mer- a subsequent clause, that " she riU, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 is of course to charge herself Am. Dec. 213 ; Gibson v. Hor- with the education and support ton, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 177 ; of our daughters, so long as King V. Cole, 6 R. I. 584); or they shall remain unmarried," that the time of its payment is raises no trust or charge upon postponed (Doe d. Harrington the property, ■y. Dill, IHoust. (Del.) 398; Har- Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. den V. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151); or 529. that it is contingent on the ' Jackson ex d. Ruggles v. Martin, arrival at a certain age of the 18 John. (N. Y.) 31. person to whom the payment ' Such as a devise to a person " pro- is to be made (Doe d. Harring- vided he give up his right to ton V. DiU, 1 Houst. (Del.) 398). aU my land in C." » Jackson ex d. Ruggles v. Martio, Gibson v. Horton, 5 Harr. & J. 18 John. (N. Y.) 31. ' (Md.) 177. < Dumond v. Strungham, 26 Barb. ' Jackson V.Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) (N. Y.) 104 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213. 342 FAILUEE TO PERFORM. [Book III. the devisee did not take a fee, he might be a loser by taking under the will and paying the debts, the specified legacies, or the gross sum, if the estate were limited to a life estate, for it might expire before he had been able to reimburse himself, from the land, the amount of the charge put upon him by his acceptance of the devise under the will.''' But the charge must be upon the per- son of the devisee in respect to the land, and must be absolute and certain, ^ to create a fee by implication, be- cause a charge upon the estate is not within the reason of the rule.^ Sec. 383. Same — Same — Failure or refusal to perform. — Where the charge is on the person, the devisee takes the estate on condition of paying the charge. If he die in the lifetime of the testator the charge ceases ; and if he re- fuses to perform, the devise is void, and the heir may ' Lindsay v. McCormack, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 339 ; s.o. 13 Am. Deo. 387 ; "Wait V. ]3eldmg, 41 Mass. (34 Pick.) 139 ; Farrar v. Ayres, 33 Mass. (5 Pick.) 404; Cook V. Holmes, 11 Mass. 538 ; Lightgow V. Cavenagh, 9 Mass. 161; BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; B.C. 41 Am. Deo. 706 ; Leavitt v. Wooster, 14 N. H. 550 ; Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 313 ; Fox V. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 393, 403 ; Harden v. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151 ; King ■;;. Cole, 6 R. I. 584 ; Doe V. Richards, 3 T. R. 356. Death of devisee or refiisal to per- form. — ^When the charge is on the person, the devisee takes the estate on condition of pay- ing the charge, and if he die in the lifetime of the testator, the charge ceases ; and if he refuse to accept and perform, the devise is void, and the heir may enter. Jackson v. BuU, 10 John. (N. Y. 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 331. 'Jackson v. Martin, 18 John. (N. Y.) 31. See : Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 138 ; Wait V. Belding, 41 Mass. (34 Pick.) 139, 139 ; Cook V. Holmes, 11 Mass. 538 ; Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ; Heard v. Horton, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 165 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 659 ; Jackson v. Martin, 18 John. (N. Y.) 31 ; Jackson ■;;. . Harris, 8 John. (N. Y.) 143 ; Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.o. 5 Am. Dec. 313 ; Barheydt v. Barheydt, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 576 ; Spraker v. Van Alstyne, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 300 ; Schoonmaker v. Stockton, 37 Pa. St. 361. Compare: Doe ex d. Thorn v. Phillips, 3 Bam. & Ad. 758 ; s.c. 33 Eng. C. L. 330 ; Abrams v. Winshup, 3 Russ. 350. ' See : Mesick v. New, 7 N. Y. 163 ; Olmstead v. Ohnstead, 4 N. Y. 56, 58 ; Harvey v. Olmsted, 1 N. Y. 483; Vandervs^erker v. Vanderwerker, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 231 ; Jaekson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.) 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 321 ; Spraker v. Van Alstyne, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 300. Chap. VII. § 384.] CHARGE ON THE ESTATE. 343 enter.^ But a fee will not be implied from a general charge on the testator's real estate,^ with a direction to pay debts ^ or funeral expenses, out of proceeds of the estate devised.* And where the devisee has received advancements from the testator to an amount exceeding the sum of the latter's debts, and the fact is adverted to in the will, and a bequest of the surplus of advancements is made to the devisee, then a devise will not be enlarged to a fee by a direction that the devisee shall pay the debts, for there is really no charge upon the devisee at all, but the direction is a mere application of the testa- tor's own funds to the payment of his debts.^ Sec. 384. Same— Where charge on the estate.— Where the charge is upon the estate and not upon the devisee per- sonally, and there are no words of limitation, a life estate only passes.^ The distinction which runs through the cases is that where the charge is upon the estate, and there are no words of limitation, the devisee takes only an estate for life, because the reason for the rule enlarg- ing the estate granted to a fee fails.^ Justice Stoey says that "the clearly established doctrine on this subject is, that if the charge be merely on the land, and not on the person of the devisee, then the devisee upon a general devise takes an estate for life only. The reason is obvious : If the charge be merely on the estate, then the devisee (to whom the testator is always presumed to in- tend a benefit) can sustain no loss or detriment in case the estate is construed but a life estate, since the estate is taken subject to the incumbrance. But if the charge be personal on the devisee, then if his estate be but for life, it may determine before he is reimbursed for his ' Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.) = Tanner v. Livingston, 13 Wend. 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 321. (N. Y.) 83. ■' Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.) « Jackson v. Bull. 10 John. (N. Y.) 148 ; B.C. 6 Am. Deo. 321. 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 321. ' Mooberry v. Marye, 2 MuUf. (Va.) '' See : Doe v. Clarke, 5 Bos. & P. 453. •' •' N. R. 343 ; * Doe V Harter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) Moore v. Dean, 2 Bos. &. P. 247 ; 488 ; Collier's Case, 6 Co. 16 ; Jackson v. Harris, 8 John. (N. Y.) Doe v. SneUing, 5 East 87 ; 141 Goodtitle v. Maddern, 4 East 496. 344 CUTTING DOWN FEE. [Book III. payments, and thus he may sustain a serious loss. " ^ It is said in the case of Jackson v. Staats ^ that the charge of the estate with a payment of money in the hands of the devisee does not prevent its limitation over by way of executory devise. Sec. 385. Cutting down fee.— An estate given to a per- son generally, or indefinitely, with an absolute power of disposition in the first taker, carries a fee ; ^ nothing that follows can affect the estate devised,* therefore words granting a fee will not be restricted unless by necessary implication.^ But when, by limiting the character of the first estate, the second may be preserved, it is the duty of the court to do so, unless such construction is subver- sive of the general scheme of the will, or forbidden by some inflexible rule of law.^ A subsequent repugnant limitation is void.'' Butif thejMS disponendi is condi- tional, a provision as to a remainder is not repugnant.^ The Court of Appeals of New York, in the case of Byrnes ' Wright V. Demi ex d. Page, 33 V. S. (10 Wheat.) 304, 231, 233 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310, 319. See : Loveacres v. Blight, 1 Cowp. 353 * Doe V. Holmes, 8 Dumf . & E. 1 ; Denn ex d. Moor v. Meller, 5 Durnf. & E. 558 ; s.c. 2 Bos. & P. 247 ; Doe v. Richards, 8 Dumf. & E. 356; Goodtitle v. Maddem, 4 East 496; Canning v. Canning, Mor. Ch. 240. 2 11 John. (N. Y.) 837 ; B.C. 6 Am. Deo. 376. ' Stewart v. Walker, 73 Me. 146 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 811, 316 ; Shaw V. Hussey, 41 Me. 495 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 535. * See : Ward v. Amory, 1 Curt. C. C. 435. ' Giiford v. Choate, 100 Mass. 343, 345. Interest of trustee — Cutting down by implication, — The case of Curtis V. Price, 13 Ves. 89 ; s.c. 8 Eev. Rep. 303, has been said to be a solitary instance of a limitation ia fee by deed to trustees being cut down by implication to an estate par autre vie. See : Cooper v. Kynoch, L. R. 7 Ch. 403 ; s.c. 41 L. J. Ch. 396 ; 26 L. T. N. S. 566. « Wager v. Wager, 96 N. Y. 164, 174. See : Smith v. Van Ostrand, 64 N. Y. 378 ; Nori-is V. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 373. ' Giflford V. Choate, 100 Mass. 843, 346. See : Stuart v. Walker, 72 Me. 146 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 311, 816; Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y. 465, 468 ; Smith V. Van Ostrand, 64 N. Y. 378; Tyson v. Blake, 23 N. Y. 558 ; Norris v. Beyea, 18 N. Y. 278 ; Paterson v. EUis, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 359, 360 ; Attorney-General v. Hall, Fitz- Gib. 814 ; Ross V. Ross, 1 Jac. & W. 154 ; BuE V, Kingston, 1 Meriv. 814. » Van Home v. Campbell, 100 N. Y. 387, 800. See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y. 465 ; Smith V. Van Ostrand, 64 N. Y. 378. Chap. VII. § 386.] WHEN FEE NOT CUT DOWN. 345 V. Stilwell/ have held that an estate in fee created by a will cannot be cut down or limited by a subsequent clause, unless it is as clear and decisive as the language of the clause which devises the estate.^ If the property may, under the terms of the will, be used and spent by the primary legatee at his pleasure, further limitation is clearly hostile to the nature and intention of the gift, and will not be presumed.^ Thus a devise and bequest of all the property of a testator to his wife, to be enjoyed by her for her sole use and benefit, will vest in her the absolute title and power of disposition, unaffected by the expression in the will of a wish or desire of the testator that on her decease the property, or such portion of it as might remain, should be received and enjoyed by her son.* Sec. 386. Same— Pee not cut down when.— A fee will not be cut down by the addition of the words ' ' for life, " so as to read a devise in fee-simple for life ; ^ or the ad- > 103 N. Y. 453, 460. See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y. 464. « See : Freeman v. Colt, 96 N. Y. 63, 68 ; Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y. 467; Eoseboom v. Roseboom, 81 N. Y. 356 359 ' ThomhUl v. Hall, 2 CI. & Fin. 23. 3 Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y. 464. See : Byrnes v. StUweU, 103 N. Y. 453, 460 : s.c. 51 Am. Rep. 760 ; 9 N. E. Rep. 241 ; Van Home v. CampbeU, 100 N. Y. 30; Wager v. Wager, 96 N. Y. 173 ; Jones V. Jones, 66 Wis. 310, 817 ; s.c. 57 Am. Rep. 266 ; 28 N. W. Rep. 177. * Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y. 464. ' Because the words " for life " are repugnant to the estate already granted, and therefore of no effect. McAUister v. Tate, 11 Rich. (S. C.) L. 509 ; s.c.73 Am.Dec.ll9. See : Giles v. Little, 104 U. S. 291 ; bk. 26 L. ed, 748 ; Smith V. BeU, 31 U, S. (6 Pet.) 68 ; bk. 8 L, ed. 322 • Bradly v. Westcott, 13 Ves. 445 ; s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 207. "During tieir fives" after grant of fee-simple. — In the case of Doe ex d. Cotton v. Stenlake, 12 East 515 ; s.c. 11 Rev. Rep. , the devise vcas, " I give unto my daughter, PMUis Cotton, and her heirs, Moor- head meadow, during their hves." Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said: "The words ' dur- ing their hves,' after the devise to the daughter and her heirs, are merely the expression of a man ignorant of the manner of describing how the parties whom he meant to benefit should enjoy the property ; for whatever estate of inheritance the heirs of his daughter might take, they could in fact only enjoy the benefit of it for their lives." "Diuring her natiiral Ufa" limits estate. — In Boyd v. Strahan, 30 111. 355, there was a bequest to the wife of aU the personal property not otherwise disposed of, "to be at her own disposal, and for her own proper use and benefit during her natural life," and the court held that the 346 NOT CUT DOWN WHEN. [Book HI. dition of "for her sole and separate use during her life ; " ^ or by a devise over on the death of the first taker without a son, 2 or in case the devisee "shall die with- out heirs of his body ; " ^ or by a provision that '' should , any of my children die without heirs, his bequeathed share shall revert ; " * or that the profits of the land shall be ap- plied to a particular purpose ; ^ or by precatory words to the effect that the devisee will leave the land to certain per- sons, or to certain uses, should he die without issue, or in any other contingency,^ because mere words of desire or recommendation do not create a trust in an absolute devisee or legatee, '^ unless by express words of the testator it ap- words " during her natural life " so qualified the power of disposal as to make it mean such disposal as a tenant for life could make. ' The only effect of such a clause, where a fee has previously been given to the woman, will be to exclude the marital rights of the husband, but will leave the estate still a fee-simple. SkiUen v- Loyd, 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 563. ^ Molson V. Doe ex d. Cooper, 4 Leigh (Va.) 408. 3 Roser v. Slade, 3 Md. Ch. 91. * Shutt V. Rambo, 57 Pa. St. 149. ' Thompson v. Swoope, 24 Pa. St. 474. ^Batchelor v. Macon, 69 N. C. 545; Second Reformed Pres. Church v. Disbrow, 35 Pa. St. 219 ; Pennook's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 268 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718. ^ Ancient rule as to precatory words. — It is said by the Supreme Judi- cial Court of Massachusetts, in the case of Hess v. Singler, 114 Mass. 56, 59, that " it is a settled doctrine of courts of chancery that a devise or bequest to one person, accompanied by words expressing a wish, entreaty, or recommendation that he will apply it to the benefit of others, may be held to create a trust, if the subject and the objects are sufiioiently certain. Some of the earlier English decisions had a tendency to give to this doctrine the weight of an ar- bitrary rule of construction. But by the later cases, in this, as in all other questions of the interpi-etation of wiUs, the in- tention of the testator, as gathered from the whole will, controls the court. In order to create a trust, it must appear that the words were intended by the testator to be impera- tive ; and when property is given absolutely and without restriction, a trust is not to be lightly imposed, upon mere words of recommendation and confidence." See : Van Duyne v. Van Duyne, 14 N. J. Eq. (1 McCar.) 397 ; Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. 539; Warner v. Bates, 98 Mass. 274, 277; Pennock's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 368 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718 ; Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 148, 173 ; s.c. sub nom. Knight v. ' Boughton, 11 CI. & Fin. 513 ; Lambe v. Eames, L. R. 10 Eq. 367; s.c. L.R. 6Ch. 597. Modem rule as to precatory words. — It is said in the case of Pennook's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 368 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718, 733, 724, that the ancient rule is fading away even in England ; that the disrelish with which it is received by the legal and judicial minds of that country may be seen in the doctrine of extreme certainty required as to the subject and object of the recommendation. Harland v. Trigg, 1 Bro. C. C. 143; Chap. VII. § 386.] RECOMMENDATION OBLIGATORY. 347 pears that the recommendation was intended to be obli- gatory, as where there are words expressive of desire as to the direct disposition of the estate ; ^ or by words re- Tibbits V. Tibbits, 19 Ves. 664 ; Wright V. Atkyns, 1 Ves. & B. 313 ; s.c. Turn. & R. 157 ; Ex parte Payne, 3 You. & C. 636. Another reason for this falling away is found in the fact that it is degraded into the class of implied or constructive, and not express, trusts. Hill V. Bishop of London, 1 Atk. 618; Jeremy's Eq. Jur. 99 ; Lewin on Ti-usts, 66 ; 3 Roper on Legacies, 880, etc.; 3 Story's Eq. Jur., § 1074. is everywhere regarded as frustrating the wiU of the tes- tator. Meredith v. Heneage, 1 Sim. 551 ; Sale V. Moore, 1 Sim. 540 ; Wright V. Atkyns, 1 Ves. & B. 815; 3 Story's Eq. Jur., §§ 1069-1074. Words of eutrea^ty or recommeuda/- tion are not now regarded in England as creating a trust, unless on the whole they ought to be construed as imperative. Macnamara v. Jones, 1 Bro. C. C. 481; Meggison v. Moore, 3 Ves. Jr. 633; 3 Spence's Eq. Jur. 65. The rule is a mere artificial one, that is to be strictly limited to the demands of authority. It looks upon the words as prima facie words of trust. Podmore v. Gunning, 7 Sim. 665; Berkley v. Ryder, 3 Ves. Sr. 533; Worsley v. GranvUle, 3 Ves. Sr. 335. et any words or expressions are eagerly seized hold of as in- dications of a contrary intent. Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 178 ; Harland v. Trigg, 1 Bro.C.C.148 ; Shaw V. Lawless, 5 CI. & Fin. 147, 153; Foley V. Parry, 3 Myl, & K. 144 ; "White V. Briggs, 15 Sim. 33, 800 ; Meredith v. Heneage, 1 Sim. 550, 553. Trust not raised when. — ^Where it is apparent that the kindness or justice or discretion of the devisee is relied on, no trust arises. Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 148, 173, 176 ; Curtis V. Rippon, 5 Madd. 434 ; Pope v. Pope, 10 Sim. 1 ; BardsweU v. BardsweU, 9 Sim. 319; Young V. Martin, 3 You. & C. (N. S.) 483, 590 ; Malim v. Keighley, 3 Ves. Jr. 530, 533 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 339. And if it can be implied from the words that a discretion is left to withdraw any part of the subject of the devise from the object of the wish or bequest, or to apply it to the use of the devisee, no trust is created. FUnt V. Hughes, 6 Beav. 343 ; Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 173, 174; Sprange v. Bamhard, 3 Bro. C. C. 585; Wynne v. Hawkins, 1 Bro. C. C. 179 • Bland' i;. Bland, 3 Cox 354 ; Bade v. Eade, 5 Madd. 131 ; Lechmere v. Lavie, 3 Myl. & K. 301; Pope V. Pope, 10 Sim. 5 ; Horwood V. West, 1 Sim. & S. 889; Pushman v. FUhter, 3 Ves. Jr. 7. Ancient English rule not adopted in this country. — The court say in Coates' Appeal, 3 Pa. St. 139, 131, that there is no Am- erican case Tvherein the anti- quated Enghsh rule has been adopted. As to that rule. See : Flint v. Hughes, 6 Beav. 343; Sprange v. Barnard, 3 Bro. C. C. 585; Wynne v. Hawkins, 1 Bro. C. C. 179; Bland v. Bland, 3 Cox Eq. 354 ; WUliams v. Williams, 30 L. J. (N. S.)Ch. 380; s.c. 5 Eng. L. & Eq. 49 ; Eade v. Eade, 5 Madd. 118 ; White V. Briggs, 15 Sim. 33 ; Meredith v. Heneage, 1 Sim. 543; Pushman v. Filliter, 8 Ves. Jr. 7; Ex parte Payne, 3 You. & C. 686. Burt V. Herron, 66 Pa. St. 403. 34:8 FEE NOT AFFECTED "WHEN. [Book III. stricting or forbidding the sale of the land by the devisee, even where followed by a devise over on the death of the first taker ; ^ or after giving an estate in fee providing that under certain circumstances the devisee may sell the estate ; ^ or by provision that the devisee may dispose of the estate by will,^ or by a provision that the land de- vised shall not be left to a certain person ; * or by provid- ing that if the devisee "shall die seized of the estate ' Kepple's Appeal, 53 Pa. St. 311 ; Walker v. Vincent, 19 Pa. St. 369; Eeifsnyder v. Hunter, 19 Pa. St. 41; McCollough's Heirs v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St. 370. 2 Grant v. Carpenter, 8 E. I. 36. That an estate for life has been limited to a person is not a sirfficient indication of intent that the devisee shall have a life estate only, to prevent a fee-simple in the same land being given to him by subse- quent words. Geyer v. Wentzel, 68 Pa. St. 85. ' Provision for disposal hy will not reduce estite. — In Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. 529, 533, the testator provided as follows: "I give, bequeath, and devise aU the rest, residue, and re- mainder of my property and estate, whether real, personal, or mixed, to my beloved wife, Elizabeth Elliot Spooner, prin- cipal and income, to her own use, and to be disposed of at her decease according to the terms of any wiU or testament- ary document that she may leave," the court held that the provision allowing her to dis- pose of the property by her last will would not reduce her estate under the general be- quest to a mere life estate. Citing: Doe d. Herbert v. Thomas, 3 Ad. & E. 123 ; s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 77. In the latter case a tenant in fee- simple devised land to his wife, her heirs and assigns, forever, " with the intention that she may enjoy the same during her life, and by her will dispose of the same as she thinks proper." The court held that the wife took a fee ; though, in a later part of the ■wiU, the devisor limited lands in fee by using the words " heirs and assigns forever," without any addi- tional words. "To her sole use, benefit, and dis- posal" carry fee. — In Davis v. MaUey, 134 Mass. 588, a testa- tor gave to his wife all his real and personal estate "to her sole use, benefit, and disposal ; " and provided that " whatever may be left of my estate, if any, she may by will or otherwise give to those of my heirs that she may think best, she know- ing my mind upon that sub- ject. I am willing to leave the matter entirely with her, feel- ing satisfied that she will do as I have requested her to ia the matter." The court held that the wife took all the estate which the testator could devise, with the absolute right of dis- posing of it as she saw fit. " Unfettered and nnlimited " pre- clude trust. — In Meredith v. Heneage, 1 Sim. 542, a devise of a testator's estate to his wife "unfettered and unlimited, in fuU confidence and with the firmest persuasion that, in her future disposition and distribu- tion thereof, she will distin- guish the heirs of my late father, by devising and be- queathing the whole of my said estate, together and entire, to such of my said father's heirs as she may think best deserve her preference," was held by the House of Lords, upon the advice of Lord Eldon and Lord Eedesdale, not to create a trust, because the words " un- fettered and unlimited" pre- cluded the inference of such an intention. " Barnard v. Bailey, 2 Harr. (Del.)56. Chap. YII. § 387.] AMERICAN DOCTRINE. 349 herein bequeathed, or any part thereof, without lawful issue, then the estate of him so dying seized is hereby bequeathed, and shall descend," to other heirs ;^ or the provision, after a devise of the fee, that the devisee shall pay certain designated legacies, and, on his failure to do so, that the executor of the will may sell a part or all of the land devised for that purpose, where there is no devise over ; ^ and where an estate has been devised in trust, the addition of the words ' ' for her and her heirs' sole use and benefit " will not affect the equitable fee de- vised.^ Sec. 387. Same— Doctrine of the American courts— Jackson V. Bull.— It was early laid down in New York, in the case of Jackson v. Bull,* that where in a devise a charge is im- posed upon the estate devised, and there are no words of limitation, the devisee takes only an estate for life, but that when the charge is on the person of the devisee, in respect to the estate in his hands, he takes a fee. This case has been uniformly followed in New York, and the cases outside of New York are thought to be equally uniform. The case of Ide r. Ide,^ decided in 1809, by Chief Justice Parsoxs, is perhaps the earUest case in this coun- try upon the subject. In that case the action was eject- ment. The testator devised real estate to his son P, his heirs and assigns, forever, and also bequeathed to him personal estate in words denoting an absolute interest, and in a subsequent clause declared : "And further, it is my will, that if my son P. shall die and leave no lawful issue, what estate he shall leave, to be divided between my son J. and my grandson N.," etc. P. conveyed the land in his lifetime and died leaving no issue. The court held that the limitation over was void for repug- nancy to the disposing power, and on that ground decided the case for the plaintiff, making no reference to ' Van Home v. CampbeU, 100 N. ■» 10 John. (N. Y.) 148 ; s.c. 6 Am, y 287 Dec. 321. ' Banna's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 53. ' 5 Mass. 500. » Kom V. Cutler, 26 Conn. 4. 350 DOCTRINE IN AMERICAN CASES. [BOOK III. the fact that P. had exercised the power by a convey- ance. The power of disposition was held to be implied from the words, "what estate he shall leave." The next case in interest, if not in point of time of decision, is that of Melson v. Doe,^ decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia in the year 1833. This was a case where a testator devised land to his son W. and his heirs, and if he should die without a son, and not sell the land, then to the testator's son G. It was held that the devise gave W. absolute power to sell a fee-simple, and therefore, whether he sold or not, he took a fee-simple and the devise over was void. The same principle was de- clared in a prior case in the same state, ^ where the power of disposition was held to be implied from the words, "so much of the estate as may remain undisposed of." The case of Cook v. Walker ^ involved the construc- tion of a marriage settlement of real and personal property, which provided for the devolution of the prop- erty if the wife " should die intestate, without making any disposition," etc. Lumpkin, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, said : ' ' We hold it to be an incontro- vertible rule that whenever an estate is given in Georgia, either by deed or will, to a person generally or indefinite- ly, with an unlimited power of disposition annexed, it invariably vests an absolute fee in the first taker, and that neither a remainder nor an executory devise can be limited on such an estate." The cases of Flinn v. Davis * and McEee's Administra- tors V. Means ^ declare the same rule. In Pickering v. Langdon,® it was held that a gift over of real and per- sonal estate, of "what remains" on the death of the first taker, was void ; and in Eamsdell v. Ramsdell,'^ it was declared that the doctrine of Jackson v. Bull ^ was the settled law. The doctrine that an absolute power of disposition in the first taker was fatal to a limitation ' 4 Leigh (Va.) 350. = 34 ^ig,. 350. '' Riddick v. Cohoon, 4 Rand. (Va.) « 23 Me. 413. 547. ' 21 Me. 288. 3 15 Ga. 459. » 10 John. (N. Y.) 19 ; s.c. 6 Am. « 18 Ala. 133. Dec. 321. Chap. VII. § 388.] SMITH V. BELL. 351 over has been declared by the court of North Carolina, ^ and also by the court of Tennessee in two cases. ^ In the case of Van Home v. Campbell, ^ Mr. Justice Andrews, in delivering the opinion of the court, says : "After a somewhat diligent examination I have been unable to find any decision in any court in this country, adverse to the doctrine declared in Jackson v. Bull, and I think it may safely be affirmed that the doctrine of that case is the settled law of the American courts. " Sec. 388. Same— Same— Doctrineof Smitli v. Bell.— In the case of Smith v. Bell,* a testator gave a legacy to his wife " to and for her own use and benefit and disposal ab- solutely, and the remainder of said estate, after her de- cease, to be for the use of " the testator's son ; the court held that the latter clause qualified the former, and showed the wife took a life estate only. In construing the language of the devise, Chief Justice Marshall, after observing that the operation of the words "to and for her own use and benefit and disposal absolutely," annexed to the bequest, standing alone, could not be questioned, said : " But suppose the testator had added the words 'during her natural life,' these words would have restrained those which preceded them, and have limited the use and benefit, and the absolute disposal given by the prior words, to the use and benefit and to a disposal for the life of the wife. The words then are susceptible of such limitation. It may be imposed on them by other words. Even the words, disposal abso- lutely, may have their character qualified by restraining words connected with and explaining them, to mean such absolute disposal as a tenant for life may make." The doctrine of Smith ■?;. Bell has not met with the approval of the courts, being doubted in Massachusetts,^ ' See : Newland v. Newland, 1 ginia Coal & Iron Co., 93 U. S. Jones (N. C.) L. 463. 336, 333 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 937, 928 ; « Williams v. Jones, 2 Swan (Tenn.) s.c. 16 Am. L. Reg. 403. 260 ; ' See : Gifford v. Choate, 100 Mass. Davis V. Richardson, 10 Yerg. 343, 346 ; (Tenn.) 290; s.c.31 Am.Deo.581. Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass. (13 s 100 N. Y. 287, 301-303. Cush.) 382, 383 ; * 81 U S (6 Pet.) 68 ; bk. 8 L. ed. Homer v. Shelton, 43 Mass. (2 832, foUowed in Brant v. Vir- Met.) 194, 199, 301. 352 STATUTORY REGULATIONS. [Book III. questioned in New York,^ and denied in Maine.^ The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts say that the authority of this decision is somewhat impaired by the circumstance that no counsel were heard on behalf of the party against whom it was made, and that the at- tention of the court does not seem to have been drawn to the authorities in favor of the opposite conclusion ; that the decision is made to rest upon the fact that the re- mainder was the only special provision made by the will for the testator's only child, and that there were no words directly extending the wife's interest beyond her life. ^ Sec. 389. Statutory regulations.— Statutes have been passed in most if not all of the states, which have greatly modified if they have not entirely overthrown the com- mon-law rules of construction of devises of realty. They have all been in the direction of giving greater scope to the intention of the devisor, and greater latitude to the courts, when engaged in the construction of wills, than was allowed by the rules of common law. It is inex- pedient to refer to these various statutes in detail in this place. Any one desiring to inform himself accurately as to the statute law in any state, upon this or any other subject, must of necessity resort to the statutes them- selves. It is impracticable, if not impossible, to collate the statutes of the various states and give briefly their substance with entire accuracy.* If that feat were ac- complished at the time a book went to press, " the rest- less love of change which seems to be inherent in Ameri- can policy, both as to constitution and laws,"^ would of necessity soon render it inaccurate, if not misleading. Sec. 390. Construction of devises since the statutes.— The interpretation of wills in any state is governed by the ' See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 * " Stimson on Statutes " does this N. Y. 465, 469. as nearly as is possible, and his ' See : Copeland v. Barron, 73 Me. work is commended to all who 306 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 318, 319, will be content with a careful note. analysis and conscientious sum- " Giflford V. Choate, 100 Mass. 343, mary of the statute law upon 346. this or any other point. See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 => See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 406, N. Y. 464, 468. note. Chap. VII. § 390.] CONSTRUCTION SINCE STATUTES. 353 statute upon the subject prevailing at the time the will was made.^ Under many of these statiites the words " heirs and assigns " are not necessary to pass a fee, and their absence from a devise will not be evidence of an in- tention on the part of the testator to give a less estate than a fee-simple,^ the presumption under the statute being in favor of a fee.^ In some of the states this pre- sumption has been carried so far that a devise to an ad- ministrator, with power to sell real estate in the absence of sufficient personalty to pay just demands, has been construed as giving a fee,* but this is thought to be carrying statutory construction to a dangerous extreme. ' Some of the early cases in South (S. C.) 476 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. Carolina hold that the statute 758 ; in that state enacting that no HaU v. Goodwyn, 4 McC. (S. C.) words of limitation shall ' ' here- L. 442. after be necessary to devise a Compare : Boatwright v. Faust fee is simply" declaratory of 4MoC. (S. C.) 439. the law as it existed, and there- ^ Baldwin v. Bean, 59 Me. 481. fore applies to the construction ' See : Shirey v. Postlethwaite, 73 of wills made before its passage. Pa. St. 39. See : Peyton v. Smith, 4 McC. * See : McConnel v. Smith, 33 111. 611 CHAPTEE VIII. DESCENT OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATES. Sec. 391. Introductory. Sec. 392. Local or special customs — Control over descent. Sec. 393. Same — Gavelkind. Sec. 394. Same — Same — Where prevails. Sec. 395. Same — Borough-English. Sec. 396. Same — Effect on right to take as heir. Sec. 397. Same— Copyholds. Sec. 398. Descent as affected by domicile. Sec. 399. Descent at common law. Sec. 400. Same — Seisin in law. Sec. 401. Same — Same — Prevents abeyance of freehold. Sec. 402. Same — Seisin in deed. Sec. 403. Same — Same — How acquired. Sec. 404. Same — Distinction between seisin in law and in fact. Sec 405. Same — ^When entry not necessary to convert seisin in law into actual seisin. Sec. 406. Common-law rules of descent. Sec. 407. Same— First rule. Sec. 408. Same — Same — Doctrine of possessio fratris. Sec. 409. Same — Same — Same — Effect on dower and curtesy. Sec. 410. Same — Second rule. Sec. 411. Same — Third rule. Sec. 412. Same — Fourth rule. Sec. 413. Same— Fifth rule. Sec. 414. Same — Sixth rule. Sec. 415. Same— Seventh rule. Sec. 416. Same — Eighth rule. Sec. 417. Same — Same — Feudal origin of primogeniture. Sec. 418. Rules of descent in the United States. Section 391. introductory.— By descent is understood the hereditary succession to an estate in realty, and is the title whereby a man on the death of his ancestors acquires his estate by right of representation as his heir at law/ as contra-distinguished from title by purchase, or ' Mayer v. McLure, 36 Miss. 395 ; Barclay v. Cameron, 25 Tex. 241; B.C. 72 Am. Dec. 190 • 2 Bl. Com. 201. 354 Chap. VIII. §§ 392, 393.] LOCAL OR SPECIAL CUSTOMS. 355 by the act or agreement of the parties.^ The law itself casts the estate upon the heir immediately on the death of the ancestor, 2 and the party cannot disclaim the estate if he would. ^ Title to real estate thus cast upon the party is not derived from natural law, but is owing to statutes regulating the subject which are positive, and to some degree arbitrary.* The descent of real estate in the various states of the Union is governed by local statutes, which must be resorted to by the student and the practitioner to ascertain the rules of descent in any particular state. The laws regulating the descent of real property, like the laws governing many other subjects, are not constant but "exposed to the restless life of change which seems to be inherent in American policy, both as to statutes and laws. " ^ Sec. 392. Localorspeeialcustoms— Control over descent.— The rules of the common law governing the devolution of lands in England frequently give way to local cus- toms, as in the case of gavelkind and borough-English, which are not modes of tenure, but customary modes of devolution of lands in particular places, by virtue of which the inherent descents differ from the course of descent prescribed by the common law, although the tenure is in socage, and the words of hmitation used to create the estate are those used to create common-law fees. Sec. 393. Same— Gavelkind.— Gavelkind is a particular custom in vogue in Kent, which ordains that all sons alike should succeed to their father's estate.® The word gavelkind is used, or confused rather, in three different senses : (1) To denote tenure, which is a species of socage having peculiar customs connected with it ; (2) to denote the several parts which together make up the customs of ' Donahue's Estate, 36 Cal. 829. ■• Davis v. Stinson, 53 Me. 493 ; '2B1 Com. 210. Haven?;. Foster, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) => See : Smiths. Smith, 23 Ind. 202 ; 127 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 353 ; Baxter v. Bradbury, 20 Me. 260; Gannon v. NoweU, 6 Jones (N. C.) s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 49 ; L. 436. Overturf v. Dugan, 29 Ohio St. ' See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 408, 230 ; note. Bimey v. Wilson, 11 Ohio St. " Anderson L. Diet. 486. 426. 356 GAVELKIND AND BOROUGH-ENGLISH. [BOOK III. Kent ; and (3) to denote only the custom of equal parti- tion among males upon a descent.^ But it is conceived that the word is not properly used to denote the tenure ; for the custom "runs with the land and not with the tenure. " ^ Sec. 394. Same — Same— Where prevails. — Gavelkind is found as a custom most commonly, but not exclusively, in the county of Kent,^ where all lands are presumed to be gavelkind until the contrary is shown.* It seems that the word gavelkind is not properly used as to lands affected by the customs outside of Kent.^ The custom of Kent must, at all events, from its importance, be regarded as a normal standard of gavelkind, and all variations from it as being separate and peculiar customs. By this custom the descent is among all the sons equally, and in default of sons to all the daughters equally, and in default of children to all the brothers equally. The issue of a deceased son, daughter, or brother, who, if living, would have been entitled to partake, being also entitled per stirpes to the share of their deceased parent.® Sec. 395. Same— Borough-English.— What is known as borough-English is a custom prevalent in some parts of England, chiefly in the old boroughs, by which the youngest son inherits the father's estate, and was so called to distinguish it from the Norman rule of primo- geniture.' This custom is chiefly found in connection with lands held by burgage-tenure within certain boroughs,^ which species of socage does not seem to be affected by the statute of Charles 11.^ Various kinds or ' Rob. Gav. 9. together with other less impor- « Rob. Gav. 80, 87, 90. tant points, some of which are *See: Litt.,§210; now obsolete in England and 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 140a. never had any force in this * Rob. Gav. 54. country. ' Rob. Gav. 8, note. See : Rob. Gav. 96. « Rob. Gav. 113, 115. ' Anderson L. Diet. 133. Effect of gavelkind on dower. « See : Litt., §165 ; —The customs of gavelkind 1 Co. Litt.,"' (19th ed.) 110b. affect lands subject to it in ' 18 Chas. II., c. 34. other respects than descent ; See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 116a, namely, dower, curtesy, alien- Hargrave's note 1. ation by infants, and escheat. Chap. VIII. § 397.] BOROUGH-ENGLISH AND COPYHOLDS. 357 modifications of the custom, including its extension to females, also to collateral descents, are met with, and the custom is also found in some manors. ^ Sec. 396. Same — EflFect on right to take as heir. — The prevalence of these local customs had a tendency to con- fuse the question as to who should take as heir at law, where the man held lands by purchase in boroughs where different customs prevailed. The phrase " heir at law " has no meaning except in reference to the estate to which the person so designated might possibly succeed by inheritance. The same man, if he should be seized as purchaser in fee-simple of lands subject to different cus- toms of descent, might leave several distinct heirs at law. If he should die intestate leaving sons, his heir at law, as to lands which are subject to no special custom, is his eldest son ; as to borough-English lands, is his youngest son ; and his heir at law, as to gavelkind lauds, will be composed of all his sons taking together as co- parceners. And other special customs may lawfully exist affecting lauds in particular manors or boroughs, which may multiply still further his capacity for leaving distinct heirs. Sec. 397. same— Copyholds.— Special customs affecting the descent of lands held for a fee-simple are much more commonly found in connection with copyholds held for the customary fee-simple, than in connection with lands held for the fee-simple by common- law tenure. The cause of this greater frequency is twofold. In the first place, custom is the life of copyhold tenure, and peculiarities of custom in connection therewith have always been much more common than in connection with common-law tenure. In the second place, customs affecting copyhold tenure have a much stronger tendency to be remembered and preserved in practice, because the manorial incidents of copyhold tenure are generally more valuable, and better worth insisting upon, than manorial incidents of freehold tenure. To this must be added the effect of the statute of Quia Emptores, which has been gradually to extinguish ' Rob. Gav. 391, 393. 358 DESCENT AFFECTED BY DOMICILE. [Book III. the tenure of freehold lands held for a fee-simple of the mesne lords, and to concentrate all such tenure in the crown. ^ Sec. 398. Descent as afiFacted by domicile.— At common law neither a bastard, ^ nor a monster,*^ "which hath not the shape of mankind," can be heir or inherit any land, even though it be brought forth within marriage ; * but a creature that has deformity in. any part of his body, and yet has human shape, he may be heir, and inherit real estate.^ Eules of descent are not dependent solely upon the rules of personal status in respect to questions of legitimacy, and of consequent qualification to inherit. Thus, the law of a man's domicile or origin is conclu- sive as to his legitimacy in respect to personal status, but such legitimacy is not conclusive in respect to his right to inherit under the law of descent. A person may, in respect to personal status, be legitimate though not born ex justis nuptiis ; but in relation to the law of descent, birth ex justis nuptiis is an indispensable requisite to heirship.^ ' See : ChaUis' Real Prop. 178. reddidit membra, ut si curvus ' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 8a. fuerit aut gibbesus vel membra ' See : 1 ■ Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 7b, tortuosa habuerit, non tamen 39b (o) ; est partus monstrosus. Item Bract., lib. 5, 437-438 ; puerorum alii sunt masculi, alii Brit., ca. 66, 83 ; feeminse, alii hermaphroditse. Fleta, hb. 1, c. 5 ; Id.,lib. 6, cap. Hermaphrodita tarn masoula 54. quam fasmiuee comparatur se- Lord Coke says, 1 Co. Litt. (lOtli cundumprsevalescentiamsexCls ed.) 39b: "If a wife be de- incalescentis." livered of a monster, which * Bract.,Ub. 5, fol. 437, 438 ; hath not the shape of man- Brit., ca. 66, fol. 167 ; kinde, this is no issue in the Fleta, lib. 1, ca. 5. law ; but although the issue ^ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 7b. has some deformity in any part " Every heir is either a male or of his body, yet if he hath a female, or an hermaphrodite, human shape this sufl&ceth. that is, both male or female. Hi, qui contra formam humani And an hermaphrodite (wliich generis converse more procre- is also called Androgyitus) antur (ut si mulier monstro- shall be heir, either as male or Slim vel prodigiosum fuerit female, according to the kind enixa), inter liberos non com- of the sex which doth prevail, putentur. Partus tamen cui HermajDhrodita, tarn masculo natura ahquantulum ampli- quam faeminse compara- verit vel diminuerit non tamen tur, secundum praavalescen- superbundanter, ut si sex digi- tiam sexfts incalescentis." 1 tos vel nisi quatuor habuerit, Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 8a. bene debet inter liberos com- ^ Re Don's Estate, 4 Drew 194 ; memorari. Si inutilia natura 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 7b. Chap. VIII. §§ 399-401.] SEISIN IN LAW. 359 Sec. 399. Descent at common law.— By the common law, upon the death of a person entitled to an estate in fee- simple, the lands necessarily descended to the person next entitled as heir. The person from whom heirship was deduced was not the person last entitled, but the person who, under the title, had last had seisin in deed of the lands. ^ Such person was accordingly, at the time of descent cast, said to be the stock, or, more properly, the root of descent. Actual seisin in deed ^ was absolutely necessary to make any person the stock from which all future inheritance by right of blood must be derived.^ Sec. 400. Same— Seisin in law.— Under the common-law rule, seisin in law did not suffice to make the person so seized the stock of descent.* It followed from this doctrine that where the heir to whom the inheritance had been cast died before acquiring the requisite seisin, the ancestor, not himself, being the person last seized, was the root of the stock. ^ There was an exception to this rule where the ancestor acquired the estate by purchase, in which case he was sometimes allowed to transmit the estate to his heirs, notwithstanding the fact that he never had actual seisin in deed of it himself.^ Sec. 401. Same— Same— Prevents abeyance of freehold.— The existence of a seisin in law is sufficient to prevent the seisin, or immediate freehold, from being vacant. This is evident from the fact that the creation of succes- sive estates necessarily contemplates the existence of a ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib. person who last acquired the ^ See : Vanderheyden v. Crandall, land otherwise than by descent; 2 Den. (N. Y.) 9. whereby it has now become ' Chirac v. Reinecker, 37 XJ. S. ('3 superfluous to inquire who last Pet.) 613, 625 ; bk. 7 L. ed. had seisin in deed of the land. 538, 613. By this change in the law, the See : ' Jackson v. Hendricks, 3 importance of the distinction John. Cas. (N. Y.) 214 ; between seisin in deed and Doe V. Keen, 7 T. R. 386. seisin in law has been much * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib. diminished, but it is not even Eule suspended in England by now without some practical in- Desoent Act.— This rule of de- terest, and the correct appre- scent was suspended in Eng- hension of it is very necessary land by the Descent Act, 3 & 4 in examining titles. WUl. IV., c. 106, §2, which in- * Goodtitle v. Newman, 13 Wils. dicates that in every case de- 516. scent shall be traced from the « See : Shelley's Case, 1 Co. 98a. purchaser, that is, from the 360 SEISIN IN DEED. [BOOK III. seisin in law only, upon the determination of the par- ticular estate in possession. If a seisin in law were insuf- ficient to prevent an abeyance of the immediate freehold, all creation of successive estates would, for that reason, be void by the common law.^ Sec. 402. Same— Seisin in deed.— Seisin in deed is less properly, though conveniently, styled actual seisin, and denotes the seisin of the person having the immediate freehold as distinguished from the remainderman and reversioner, who are all said to be " in of the same seisin." With regard to estates of freehold in corporeal hereditaments, that is, in lands, seisin in deed is obtained when the person entitled to possession by virtue of the estate enters actually and corporeally into possession of the land, either by himself or his agent. The possession of a person's tenant for years, or from year to year, or at will, is in law counted to be his possession ; and for that reason, if at the time of the descent cast the lands are held by a tenant for years, the heir acquires the seisin in deed at once by the descent without entry. ^ The possession of other persons having chattel interests only, such as a tenant by elegit, a tenant by statute merchant, or a tenant by statute staple, was, in contemplation of the common law, the possession of the person entitled to the freehold subject to such chattel interest, and was a sufficient possession in him to convert his seisin in law into a seisin in deed.^ Sec. 403. Same— Same— How acquired.— Seisin in law is J ChaUis' Real Prop. 182. which ex vi termini no estate ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 15a; in possession is possible, and Watk. Desc. 66. therefore no entry could be ' Watk. Desc. 64, 65. made, a seisin in deed, suffl- Witi regard to incorporeal here- cient to make the person ob- ditaments, which admit of es- taining it the root of the de- tates in possession, such as a scent, might be obtained by rent-charge, seisin in deed is exercising certain acts of evidenced by, and consists in, ownership, such as by granting the doing of some appropriate a lease for life to take effect out act of ownership, such as re- of the remainder or reversion ; ceiving the rent-charge. by receiving the rent, if any. See : ChaUis' Real Prop. 181. reserved at the creation of th^ Witk regard to estates in re- precedent estate of freehold, mainder or reversion, upon an and the like, estate of freehold, which are See : Watk. Desc. 108. incorporeal hereditaments in CHAP; VIII. § 404.] DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEISINS. 361 converted into seisin in deed by making an actual entry, or entry in deed, upon the land, such entry being expressed to be made with that intent and in that behalf. Such an entry made upon any part of the land will give seisin in deed of all lands situated in the same county of which the person making the entry has seisin in law. The actual entry is made so soon as the person desiring to make an entry has any part of his body upon the land, and is complete and effectual even though he should immediately afterwards be dragged off by force. ^ At common law seisin in deed of incorporeal hereditaments, such as a rent-charge, could be obtained only by exercising some appropriate act of ownership, such as receiving the rent ; and if, by reason of the death of the heir before the rent became due, a seisin in deed could not be obtained, this impossibility did not supply the want of seisin in deed, and the heir failed to become the root of descent.^ Sec. 404. Same— Distinction between seisin in law and in fact.— Seisin in law is only a presumption of the law, which is incompatible with, and is rebutted by, the fact that the seisin in deed, or actual seisin, is, whether right- fully or wrongfully, in somebody else. If the person actually geized by lawful title is disseized by a disseis- or, the person disseized has not a seisin in law, but only a right to enter ; so that if, before the entry of the heir, a stranger should wrongfully enter in fact upon the lands, ^ ' Watk. Desc. 61. violence, he may make an Entry indeed.— Watkins cites the entry in law by approaching as case that has been so often near as he safely may, and there made to do duty, when actual making his claim ; which entry had been made by get- under such circumstances will ting through the window : Et take effect as an actual entry. pur ceo qu'il ne purra entrer Watk. Desc. 62. per le huis, il entra per le fen- " If one dare not enter, but ap- estre, et quant I'un moitie de proach and is disturbed, this is son corps fuit deins la meason sufficient seisin." llAss.,pl.ll. et I'autre de hors, il fuit treit Same.— Proof must be given that hors ; per q. il poi-tcest assies, an entry in deed could not be for which seisin in deed was safely made. Booth, Real Ac- necessary, et fuit agarde q. le, tions, 285. pi recovera. 8 Ass., pi. 25, f. ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 15b. jYI, 3 Such a wrongful entry is techni- Entry in law.— If the person en- cally styled an abatement, and titled be hindered from making the stranger so entering an an effectual entry by fear of abator. 362 ENTRY AND SEISIN. [Book III. the heir no longer has a seisin in law, but only a right to enter. And if, before the entry of the remainderman or reversioner, a stranger should in like manner enter, ^ the remainderman or reversioner no longer has a seisin in law, but only a right to enter. The distinction between a right of entry and a seisin in law is that the right to enter implies ex vi termini that the actual seisin is wrongfully in somebody else, while a seisin in law implies that there is no actual seisin in anybody. But an actual entry, which would suffice to turn a seisin in law into a seisin in deed, is also sufficient to turn a right of entry into a seisin in deed. But seisin in law suffices, at common law, to make the estate assets in the hands of the heir to answer the ancestor's bond specifying the heirs.^ Seisin in deed during coverture is still necessary in order to entitle a husband to curtesy in his wife's lands ; but seisin in law during coverture was always sufficient to entitle the wife to dower out of her husband's lands. ^ This distinction was due to the fact that the husband had power at any time during the coverture to turn his wife's seisin in law, which was also his own seisin, into a seisin in deed by his own sole act ; so that if he had lost his curtesy for want of seisin. in deed, the loss would have been due to his own laches. On the other hand, the wife, being disabled at common law by her coverture, had no corresponding power to convert her husband's seisin in law into seisin in deed.* Sec. 405. Same— When entry not necessary to convert seisin inlaw into actual seisin.— Where lands are in the possession, or rather the occupation, of a tenant for years, or from year to year, entry is not necessary in order to convert a seisin in law into a seisin in deed, or actual seisin. In such a case, seisin in deed is ipso facto acquired by the heir immediately upon the descent cast.** The same is • Such an entry is technically styled 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 377a. an intrusion, and the stranger lord Hardwioke's conftflion. — In an intruder. De Grev v. Richardson, 3 = Watk. Desc. 55. Atk. 469, Lord Habdwicke ' See : Challis' Real Prop. 184, 379. seems, obiter, to have confused " See : Challis' Real Prop. 184. the reversion upon a lease for '■ Bushby-w. Dixon, 3 Barn. & C. 398; years v/ith the reversion upon s.c. 10 Eng. C. L. 143 ; a lease for lives only, of which Chap. VIII. §§ 406-408.] RULES OF DESCENT. 363 true in regard to the occupation of other persons having chattel interests/ such as tenants by elegit, and the like. Sec. 406. Common-la-w rules of descent.— Under the com- mon law there are certain rules or canons of inher- itance which have been established for ages, accord- ing to which estates are transmitted from ancestor to heir, in so clear and decided a manner as to preclude all uncertainty as to the course which the descent is to take.'^ These English rules or canons of inheritance are of feudal origin and growth, and most of their essential features have been rejected in this country;^ yet a knowledge of these rules or canons, and of their appli- cation, is essential to a mastery of the law of real prop- erty as it exists in this country to-day. Sec. 407. Same— First rule.— By the common law the descent of hereditaments is traced from the person who, under the title in fee-simple, last obtained seisin in deed thereof.* This rule is often summarized by the maxim, seisina facit stipitem, seisin makes the root or stock ;^ and the person referred to is styled the stock of descent, or, more properly, the root of descent.^ Sec. 408. Same — Same — Doctrine of possessio fratris.— Under this rule of the common law, making seisin in deed the root of descent, taken in connection with another rule,^ which forbade collaterals of the half-blood the latter needed receipt of rent c. 106, § 3. in order to give seisin indeed. This rule and maxim, relics of the See : Doe v. Whichelo, 8 T. R. tronWeaome times wlien riglit 311, 313; witiiout possession was worth Doe V. Keen, 7 T. R. 386, 390. but little, sometimes gave ■ Watk. Deso. 65. occasion to difficulties, owmg ■' See : 3 Bl. Com. 208, et seq. ; to the uncertainty of the ques- 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 374. tion, whether possession had •' See : Bogert v. Furman, 10 Paige or had not been taken by any Ch. (N. Y.) 496 ; person entitled as lieir. Thus, Sweezey v. WiUis, 1 Bradf. (N. where a man was entering a y ) 495 ; house by a window, and when 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 335, 342. half out and half in, was puUed ■• 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib. out again by the heels, it was 6 2 Bl Com. 309 ; made a question whetlier this Broom Max. 537, 528 ; entry was sufficient, and it was 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 388, 389. adjudged that it was. Watk. « This role is suspended by the De- Desc. 45 (4th ed.) 53. scent Act, 3 and 4 Will. IV., ' See : Post, % 413. 36i POSSESSIO FEATRIS— DOWEE AND CUETESY. [Book III. to inherit, it followed that, if a brother had taken as heir by descent, and had acquired seisin in deed, his sister, if any, of the whole-blood, on his death intestate and without issue, would inherit as heir to him, to the complete exclusion of his or her brothers, if any, of the half-blood.^ This result of an actual seisin obtained by the brother is often referred to as the doctrine of posses- sio fratris, and was applied to the descent of all heredita- ments, whether legal or equitable, of which seisin in deed, or such a possession as in equity was equivalent thereto, could be had.^ Sec. 409. Same— Same— Same— Effect on dower and curtesy. — The seisin of a widow, to whom land had been assigned as dower, by that express title, was a continuation of the seisin of her deceased husband. The heir, therefore, could not, by entry, obtain seisin in deed of such land, so long as it remained in dower ; and even though he had entered into the whole lands before assignment of dower, yet the assignment, when made, would have defeated his seisin acquired by the entry. For this reason there could be no possessio fratris of land actually in dower, unless the very unusual step had been taken, of granting an estate for life, or in tail, to take effect out of the heir's estate ; and under ordinary circumstances, the two-thirds retained by the heir might, on his death, pass to his sister of the whole-blood, while the one-third assigned as dower, on the death of the dowress, passed to the younger brother of the half-blood, as being the heir to the com- mon father, the person who has last had seisin in deed of that one-third.^ The acquisition of a seisin in deed, suf- ficient to change the course of descent, by a remainder- man or reversioner, was practically so rare, that some ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 14b. See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 281a. ' Watk. Deso. 106, 107. Descents in England being now This doctrine was not favored, and traced from a specified root of the claim of the brother to descent, the mere acquisition of have obtained seisin in deed a possessio /raiSns cannot have was weighed very rigorously. any practical influence upon A seisin which was a good the course of descent. ChalUs' foundation for a writ of right Real Prop. 187. did not necessarily suffice to ' Watk. Desc. 84, 85. support a possessio fratris. Chap. VIII. §§ 410-413.] EULES OF DESCENT. 365 writers^ seem to imply that it did not happen at all ; but the possibility of such an acquisition is ad- mitted by all.^ In cases where a tenancy by the curtesy existed, since the sole actual seisin was vested in the hus- band immediately on the death of the wife, without any interval or any need for entry, there was a similar obstacle in the way of any possessio fratris during the curtesy.^ Sec. 410. Same — Second rule.— By the common law, hereditaments descended lineally to the issue of the root of descent in infinitum, but they could never lineally ascend.* Sec. -ill. Same— Third rule.— At common law, for de- fects of issue, hereditaments descended to the collateral relations, being of the blood of the first purchaser.^ Sec. 412. Same— Fourth rule.— By tjie common law, the collateral heir, in order to take by a descent, was required to be the next collateral kinsman of the whole-blood.® From this canon sprang the doctrine of possessio fratris heretofore adverted to.^ Sec. 413. Same— Fifth rule.— According to the common law, the male issue were admitted before the female.^ In this country, without exception, it is believed, all the children, both male and female, inherit equally together, subject in some of the states to the right of the eldest to ' Watk. Desc. 84, 85. = 3 Bl. Com. 220. 2 See : Watk. Desc. 108. " 2 BL Com. 234 ; » "Watk. Desc. 104. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 14a. * 3 Bl. Com. 208 ; ' See ; Ante, § 408. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib ; This canon was firmly established Litt., § 3. in the reign of Edward II. This rale of descent has also been 5 Bdw. II. , Mayn 148 ; altered in England by the 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) Descent Act, 3 & 4 WiU. IV.. 317. c. 106, § 3. See : Hawkins v. Shewen, 1 Sun. In this country the rule is greatly & S. 357. changed by local statutes, so as Relations of the half-Wood are ren- te admit at least father and dered capable of inheriting by mother as heirs in the event the Descent Act. of the failure of Uneal descend- See 3 & 4 WiU. IV. , c. 106, § 9. ants. ' 3 Bl. Com. 313, 213. See; i Stimson's Statutes, pas- See : English Descent Act, 8 & 4 Sim. Will. IV., c. 106, § 7. 366 RULES OF DESCENT. Book III. the homestead, by paying to the others their respective shares of its value. ^ Sec. 414. Same— Sixtli rule.— At common law, in col- lateral inheritances, the male stock was preferred to the female ; that is, kindred derived from the blood of the male ancestors, however remote, were admitted before those from the blood of the female, however near ; except in those cases where the lands Were in fact descended from the female.^ Under this rule the relations of the father's side were admitted in infinitum, before those of the mother's side were admitted at all.^ Sec. 415. Same— Seventh rule.— By the common law the lineal descendants, in infinitum, of any person deceased, shall represent their ancestor, and thus stand in the same place as the person himself would have done had he been living.* This rule is not universally adopted in this country, but in many of the states descendants take per stirpes only, when they stand in different degrees of relationship to the common ancestor.^ Sec. 416. Same— Eighth rule.— At common law, where there were two or more males in equal degree, the eldest son inherited, but the females altogether.® This canon of descent fixed firmly the doctrine of primogeniture, or the descent of the land to the eldest son. It is said that, with the introduction of tenures, primogeniture began to prevail ; yet it is found that, as late as the reign of Henry I.,'^ the right of primogeniture was so feeble, that, if there was more than one son, the succession was divided, and the eldest son took only the primum patris ' See : Stimson's Stats., •passim. 2 Bl. Com. 317 ; ' 2- Bl. Com. 234. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 391, 392. ' Qere v. Brook, 2 Plow. 443. • See : Davis v. Stinson, 53 Me. ' 2 Bl. Com. 316. 493 ; TaKng per stirpes and per capita. — Kelly v. KeUy, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) This canon of descent gave 443. rise to the succession per = 1 Cooley's Bl. Com. 454, note 8. oes, or according to the * 2 Bl. Com. 314. roots, in distinction from the Daughters take the inheritance as taking per capita, that is, coparceners under this rule, and where each takes in his own are said to make but one heir, degree of the ancestor in his Burt. Real Prop., §316. own direct right. ' Leges, 17. Chap. VIII. §§ 417, 418.] ORIGIN OF PRIMOGENITURE. 367 fcedum,^ the rest of the property being left to descend to the younger son or sons. This custom, however, soon went out of use, or was altered by some statute now lost. In the reign of Henry II. the eldest son was considered as sole heir ; and so fixed was his right of succession to the inheritance held by his ancestors that it could not be disappointed by alienation.^ Sec. 417. Sams— Same— Feudal origin of primogeniture.— While the feudal origin of primogeniture is undisputed, it appears to have taken a deeper root in England than elsewhere ; the total exclusion of the younger sons under this doctrine being peculiar in England alone. In the other countries' that come under feudal laws and customs a portion of the inheritance, or some charge upon it, was secured by law to the younger sons.^ From this ancient right arose the modern English custom of settling family estates on the eldest son. The doctrine of primogeniture, and the practice of settling family estates on the eldest son, never were recognized in this country. Sec. 418. Rules of descent in the United States.— The English rules and canons of inheritance, being of feudal origin and growth, and adapted to the peculiar institu- tions of that country, are not adapted to the wants of this country, and have been almost universally rejected by the various states of the Union. In this country * and I Hale's Hist. Com. L. 255. Si See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) 40, 41. 3 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 191a, note 1. * See : Augusta Ins. Co. v. Morton, 3 La. An. 417, 418 ; Harper v. Hampton, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) 633, 687 ; Blake v. Williams, 23 Mass. (6 Pick.) 386; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 873; Cutter ■;;. Davenport, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 81, 86 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec, 149 ; Goodwin v. Jones, 3 Mass. 514, 518 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 173 ; Andrews v. Herriot, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 508, 527, note ; Holmes v. Bemsen, 4 John. Ch. (N. y.) 460 ; s.c. 30 Johns. (N. Y.) 254 ; Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 637 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 264 ; Hosford V. Nichols, 1 Paige. Ch. (N. Y.) 220 ; Wills V. Cowper, 2 Ohio 124 ; Milne a. Moreton, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 853 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 466 ; Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U. S. 853 ; 35 L. ed. 888 ; Oakey v. Bennett, 53 U. S. (11 How.) 83 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 593 ; Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 23 U. S. (10 Wheat.)465 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 367; McCormick v. Sullivant, 28 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 193; bk. 6 L. ed. 300; 368 DESCENT IN UNITED STATES. [Book III. England,^ as well as on the continent of Europe,^ all real and personal property is exclusively subject to the laws of the government or state within whose territory the land is situated ; and a title thereto can be acquired and lost and devise thereof made only in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where the land is situated.^ The Kerr v. Moon's Devisees, 33 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 565, 566 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 161 ; Clark V. Graham, 19 U. S. (6 Wheat.) 577 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 344 ; United States v. Crosby, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 115 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 387. ' Birtwhistle v. Vardill, 5 Bam. & C. 438 ; s.c. 9 Bligh 33-88 ; 11 Eng. C. L. 531 ; Phillips V. Hunter, 3 H. Bl. 402 ; s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 358 ; SiU V. Worswiok, 1 H. Bl. 665 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 816 ; EUiott V. Minto, 6 Madd. 16 ; Cookerell v. Dickens, 3 Moore P. C. 98, 131, 133 ; Coppin V. Coppin, 3 Pr. Wms. 390, 398 ; Selkrig v. Davies, 3 Rose 97 ; s.c. 3 Dow. 330; Hunter v. Potts, 4 T. R. 183 ; s.c. suh nom. Phillips v. Hunter, 3 H. Bl. 403 ; 3 Rev. Rep. 358 ; Curtis V. Hutton, 14 Ves. 537, 541; Brodie v. Barry, 3 Ves. & B. 130; TuUoch V. Hartley, 1 Younge & C. (N. R.) 114. * See : 3 Burge, Comm. on Col. & For. Law, pt. 3, c. 9, pp. 840- 870; 4 lb., pt. 3, 0. 4, § 5, p. 150; Ib.,c. 5, n. 11, pp. 71,317; lb., c. 13, p. 576 ; FoeUx, Conflict des Lois, Revue, Estrang. et Franc, torn. I., §8 37-37, pp. 316-350, 307-313 (ed. 1740) ; Vattel, b. 3, c. 8, §§ 100, 108 ; Pothier, Coutume d'Orleans, c. 1, §§ 23-24 ; Id., c. 3, n. 51 ; Hertii Opera, torn. I. de CoUis. Leg., § 4, n. 9, p. 135 (ed. 1737); Bouthier, Cout. deBourg., c. 23, §§ 36-63 ; Le Burn, de la Commimaute, lib. I., o. 5, pp. 9, 10 ; D'Agnesseau, CEuvres, torn. IV., p. 660 (4to ed.) ; Cochin CEuvres, torn. I., p. 545 (4toed.); 1 Froland, Mem. , c. 4, p. 49 ; Id., c. 7, p. 155 ; Liverm. Dissert., §§ 9-162, pp. 28- 106; Ersk. Inst., b. 3, tit. 3, § 40, p. 515 • 3 Bell Com. (4th ed.), 8 1366, p. 690; Henry on Foreign Law, 13, 14. 15; Id., Appx. 169. ' See ; Lingen v. Lingen, 45 Ala. 410, 413 ; Potter V. Titcomb, 33 Me. 300 ; White V. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144 ; Gettings v. Eastman, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 19 ; Abell V. Douglass, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 805: MiUs V. Fogal, 4Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 559; Ex parte Perkins, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 124 ; Halley v. James, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 213 ; Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 637, 630 ; s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 264 ; Monroe v. Douglas, 4 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 126 ; s.c. 5 N. Y. 447 ; Pittsburg & St. Line R. Co. v. RothschUd (Pa.), 4 Atl. Rep. 385 ; s.c. 4 Cent. Rep. 107, 109 ; Jeter v. FeUowes, 33 Pa. St. 465 ; Donaldson v. Phillips, 18 Pa. St. 170 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 614 ; White V. Howard, 46 N. Y. 444 ; Watkins v. Holman's Lessee, 41 U. S. (16 Pet.) 25 ; bk. 10 L. ed. 873; Watts V. Waddle, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 889 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 487 ; Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 33 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 465 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 367 ; McCormick v. SuUivant, 38 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 193 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 300; Kerr v. Moon's Devisees, 33 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 365 ; bk. 6 L. ed.l61; Clark V. Graham, 19 U. S. (6 Wheat.) 577 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 834 ; United States v. Crosby, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 115 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 387 ; Chap. VIII. § 418.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT. 369 various states have passed statutes regulating the descent of real property and formulated their own rules of inherit- ance, which, while they differ materially as to details, are in the main the converse of those which ohtain in England. These rules will be fully set forth in a suc- ceeding chapter, when we come to treat of Title by Descent.^ Root V. Brotherson, 4 McL. C. C. 230; Perry Mfg Co. v. Brown, 2 Woodb. & M. C. C. 450 ; Birtwhistle v. VardOl, 5 Barn. & C. 438 ; S.C. 9 Bligh 33-88 ; 11 24 Eng. Com. L. 531 ; EUiott V. Minto, 6 Madd. 16 ; Curtis V. Hutton, 14 Ves. 537, 541. ' See : Post, Book V., chapter on "Descent." CHAPTER IX. DETERMINABLE FEES. Sec. 419. Definition of determinable fee. Sec. 430. Distinguished from fee-simple. Sec. 421, Mode of limitation. Sec. 423. Limitations creating a determinable fee. Sec. 433. Kinds of determinable fees. Sec. 434. Same — Direct limitation. Sec. 435. Same — Collateral limitation. Sec. 43Q. Converted into a fee-simple how. Sec. 437. Determinable limitations and limitations upon condition — Distinction between. Sec. 488. Alienation and devise of. Sec. 439. "Waste an incident of such estates. Section 419. Deflnitionof determinable fee.— The phrase "determinable fee " is a generic term embracing all fees which are liable to be determined by som.e act or event specified in a qualification subjoined to their creation, or inferred by law as bounding their extent, but which may continue forever.^ It is said in an early case that a de- terminable fee is " such perpetuity of an estate which may continue forever, though at the same time there is a contingency which, when it happens, will determine the estate, which contingency cannot properly be called an addition but a limitation ; " ^ but this is rather a de- > Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. Car v. EUison, 8 Atk. 74 ; • E. Co., 94 111. 93 ; Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97 ; People V. White, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) Davies v. Warner, Cro. Jac. 598 ; 28 ; Spencer v. Chase, 9 Mod. 39 : Lott V. WyckofiE, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) Walsmgham's Case, 1 Plowd. 575 ; 557 ; Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 3 Bl. Com. 109 ; Whart. (Pa.) 437 ; Fearne Cont. Rem. 187 ; McLean v. Borce, 85 Wis. 36 ; 1 Brest. Est. 431, 466 ; United States u. Reese, 5 Dill. C. Shep. Touch. 97 ; C. 411 ; 10 Viner's Abr. 183. Letheullier v. Tracey, Ambl. 304; ^ Walsingham's Case, 1 Plowd. 557. Chap. IX. §§ 420, 421.] LIMITING DETERMINABLE FEE. 371 scription of what is now known as a conditional limita: tion.^ Sec. 420. Distinguished from fee-simple.— These modified fees differ from a fee-simple in their limitation, which is to the grantee and his heirs, not simply, but subject to some qualification of a kind permitted by the law, which gives to the inheritance a more restricted character. In the case of base fees, the restriction is implied in the cir- cumstances of their origin ; but in the case of other modified fees, it is expressed in their limitation. Such lawful qualification may be of three kinds, to wit : 1. Succession of the heirs, instead of enduring forever, liable to be cut short by the happening of a future event, which limitation gives rise to a determinable fee ; 2. The heirs to whom the inheritance can descend may be restricted to the heirs of the body of a specified person or persons, which limitation gives rise to a conditional fee at common law, and to a fee-tail under the statute De Donis ; and 3. The heirs to whom the inheritance can descend may be restricted to a particular class, where the class is to be taken in a peculiar sense, which limitation gives rise to a peculiar estate sometimes styled a qualified fee- simple. Sec. 421. Mode of limitation.— In the limitation of a de- terminable fee, the limitation is expressed to be made to the grantee and his heirs until the happening of some future event, which must be of such a character that it may by possibility never happen at all. For it is an essential character of all fees of this kind, that they may by possibility endure forever. ^ A limitation to a grantee and his heirs until the happening of some event, which must in the nature of things happen sooner or later, passes no fee. If the happening of the event, though certain, is not fixed in point of time,— that is, if it de- pends upon the dropping of a life or lives, — the limitation ' See ■ Battle Square Church v. 146, 147 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 725, Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 142, 727, 728. ' n Brest. Est. 479. 372 CREATING DETERMINABLE TTEE. [Book IH. will give rise to an estate par autre vie.''- If the happen- ing of the event is fixed in point of time, the limitation gives rise to a term of years, which, notwithstanding the naming of the heir, passes to the executor on the death of the tenant.^ A limitation to a grantee and his heirs, at the will of the grantor, passes only a tenancy at will.3 Sec. 422. Limitations creating a determinable fee.— Limit- ations creating a determinable fee are partly limitations at common law, and partly limitations by the way of use and by way of devise. But in all limitations con- tained in a deed, however they may take effect, the words ' ' and his heirs, " and also in a valid clause operating by way of determinable or collateral limitation, have, so far as respects the duration of the estate limited, the same operation ; and this is true also of devises which contain words of strict limitation. Devises with the following limitations have been held to be determinable fees, to wit : As long as a certain tree shall grow ; * as long as a certain tree stands ; ^ as long as the Church of St. Paul shall stand ; ® as long as the devisee shall pay a stipulated sum annually to a designated party ; '' as long as a designated person has heirs of his body ; ^ until the marriage of a designated person shall take place ; ^ until a designated person returns from Rome ; ^* until the grantee go to Eome," or until he be promoted to a benefice ; ^ until such time as the grantee, his heirs, ex- ecutors, or administrators, make default in payment of any of certain stipulated sums ; ^^ until the grantee pay to ' See : Post, chapter XVI., " Estates Davis v. Warner, Cro. Jac. 593 ; Par Autre Vie." 1 Co. Ktt. (19th ed.) 18a ; - 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 388a. 10 Vin. Abr. 223. ■" 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 62b. « 1 Prest. Est. 482, 442. See :POsf, chapter XII., "Estates Marriage that of grantae. — It is not at Will." necessary that the marriage ^ Bowles' Case, 11 Co. 79a. should be the marriage of the " Idle V. Cook, 1 Pr. Wms. 70, 75 ; grantee himself. s.c. 2 Ld. Raym. 1144, 1148 ; See : Howard v. Norfolk, 2 Shep. Touch. 101. Swanst. 454, 461. " Walsingham's Case, 1 Plowd. 557. '» Feame Cont. Rem. 13. ' M- See : Duke of Norfolk's Case, 3 « Idle V. Cook, 1 Pr. Wms. 70 ; s.c. Ch. Cas. 1, 46. 2 Ld. Raym. 1144; " Shep. Touch. 125. Walsingham's Case, 1 Plowd. 557; '^ Id. Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97b ; 's Anonymous, 1 Leon. 83. Ghap. IX. § 424.] KINDS OF DETERMINABLE FEES. 373 the grantor a specified sum of money ; ^ for, during, and till any son that the feoffor shall beget of the body of his said wife shall accomplish the age of twenty-one years.^ So also is a conveyance conditioned that the grantees or the survivor of them, or the heirs of the survivor or survivors, should, out of the lands by the rents, issues, and profits, or by the sale of the whole or so much as should be necessary, raise so much as should be sufficient for the payment of debts, legacies, funeral expenses, and then the property to become theirs ; ^ in trust to pay to a designated person a specified sum until his debts and legacies were paid ; * in trust till the rents and profits of the lands shall raise and pay the several legacies and bequests mentioned in the testator's will ; ^ to the use of certain persons until they make a good and sufficient lease of the lands by indenture for a term of forty years,® and the like. Sec. 423. Kinds of determinable fees.— This kind of limit- ation, where words of an express limitation are used to mark out an estate, which is, by subsequent words, — being part of the limitation itself, — made liable to deter- mination upon the happening of a wholly disconnected future event, may conveniently be styled a determinable limitation.^ These limitations are of two kinds, ^ to wit : 1. Direct limitations, and 2. Collateral limitations. Sec. 424. Same— Direct limitation.— A direct limitation marks the duration of an estate by the life of a person, by the continuance of heirs, by a space of precise and measured time ; making the death of the person in the « ' Shep. Touch. 135. " Bagshasv v. Spencer, 1 Ves. 142, See : Portington's Case, 10 Co. 144. 41b ; ^ Wellington v. Wellington, 1 W. Thomson v. Mackworth, Carter Bl. 645, 647. 75 . See : Murthwaite v. Jenkinson. 2 Burg'esv. Curwin, 2Vern. 576 ; Barn. & 0. 359 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 248a. L. 162. ' Cocket V. Sheldon, F. Moore 15. ^ Shields v. Atkins, 3 Atk. 560. See : LetheuUier v. Tracy, 3 Atk. « Lusher v. Banbong, Dyer 290a. 774: s.c. Ambl. 204 ; ' Preston sometimes uses the phrase Spencer v. Chase, 10 Vin. Abr. " collateral limitation " in this 203 ; S.C. 9 Mod. 38. sense. 8 ChaUis' Real Prop. 198. 374 COLLATERAL LIMITATION. [BOOK III. first case, the continuance of heirs in the second, and the length of the given space in the third, the boundary of the estate, or the period of its duration.^ Sec. 425. Same— Collateral limitatioii.— A collateral limit- ationj at the same time that it gives an interest which may by possibility have continuance for one of the times marked out in a direct limitation, may, on the happening of some event which it describes, put an end to the right of enlargement during the continuance of that time.^ A determinable or collateral limitation is not confined to a limitation of determinable fees. Any estate including an estate for life, and a term of years, may be made liable to determine in like manner. In the latter case, the future event which is to determine the estate is not necessarily an event which by possibility may never happen at all ; which rule, as to fees, arises only from the necessity that the collateral clause shall not be simply incompatible with the direct laws, but shall admit by possibility of the endurance of the estate limited in the direct clause to its full extent. When such a collateral is annexed to the limitation of any other fee than a fee- simple, as, for ihstance, to a fee-tail, it is, of course, equally necessary that the determining event may be such as by possibility may never happen.^ Sec. 426. Converted into a fee-simple how. — Determiijable fees may be divided into two classes, according as the future event which may determine them, being (1) an event which admits of becoming impossible to happen, such as a limitation upon the marriage of a designated person, which becomes impossible by his death ; or (2) an event which must forever, if it does not actually happen, remain liable to happen, such as the death of a designated tree or the fall of a particular building. In the former case, if the designated party is not married before the death, the determinable fee is by such death ipso facto 1 See : Challis' Real Prop. 198. See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 234b ; °- 1 Frest. Est. 43. Also : Willion v. Berkley, 1 ' Littleton styles such limitations Plowd. 343. " conditions in law." Chap. IX. § 427.] DISTINCTIONS IN LIMITED FEES. 375 enlarged into a fee-simple. In the latter case the deter- minable fee can never be enlarged into a fee-simple, except by rules of the possibility of reverter. ^ The future event can admit of becoming impossible to happen, only when it is something to be done or suffered by a living person. In such case the event, if it happen at all, must happen within the time prescribed by the rule against perpetuities. Therefore determinable fees of this type admit of executory limitations to take effect upon their determination. If any such executory limitation should exist, the determinable fee cannot, pending the possibility of its determination, be enlarged into a fee-simple with- out a release of such executory limitation.^ Sec. 42'r. Determinable limitations and lim.itations upon condition— Distinction between.— When the future event which, if it should happen, will determine the estate, — as an act to be done by the grantee, or depending upon the will of the grantee, as his marriage, — the doing of the act under such circumstances bears a close resemblance to a breach of a condition that the grantee shall not do the act. These cases of determinable limitation are therefore liable to be confused with limitations upon or subject to a con- dition, giving a right of entry upon a breach by the grantee ; from which they nevertheless differ very widely, in the following particulars : 1. Where the limitation of a determinable fee is the doing by the grantee of the act which is to determine the estate, is made a part of the limitation itself, the doing of the act will, ipso facto, determine the estate, without any entry or claim on the part of the person entitled to the possibility of reverter ; ^ but where an estate is limited in fee-simple, and the limitation con- tains no qualification, but, externally to the limitation, though in the same deed, or in another deed delivered at the same time, is contained a condition by a breach of which the fee-simple is liable to be defeated, a breach does not, ipso facto, avoid the estate, but only renders 1 Challis' Real Prop. 301. » WiUion v. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 343. '■ 1 Prest. Est. 443, 444. 376 DETERMINABLE FEES— DEVISE AND WASTE. [Book III. it liable to be avoided by the entry of the person entitled to a possibility of reverter. No estate of freehold can be made to cease, without entry, ^pon the breach of a con- dition.^ 2. The conditions which are annexed to or are in defeasance of a fee-simple are subject to the common law, and are governed by the learning of common- law conditions ; because the statutes by which common- law learning applicable to conditions annexed to estates has been modified, are restricted to conditions annexed to estates which are less than a fee.^ It being true that the rule against perpetuities forms no part of the common law, it is thought that the contention of some, that such conditions are within the rule, is not well founded. Sec. 428. Alienation and devise of.— The power of the tenant of a determinable fee to alienate or devise it cannot, properly speaking, be said to be in any way restricted ; but his alienation will not create a greater estate than he himself has. He may alien at pleasure, and the assignee or devisee takes a like estate of inherit- ance, determinable upon the happening of the event which would have determined the estate in the hands of the grantee or donee, or his heirs. ^ Sec. 429. Waste an incident of such estates.— All life fees confer upon the tenant thereof the same absolute right of user, and the same right to commit unrestrained and unlimited waste, as a fee-simple.* 1 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 314b. » See : Challis' Real Prop. 307. » See : Stats. 33 Hen. VIII., c. 34, * Id. §1; 23&33Vict.,c. 35, § 8. CHAPTEE X. CONDITIONAL FEES. Sec. 430. Introductory. Sec. 431. Definition of conditional fee. Sec. 433. Early history of conditional fees. Sec. 483. Mode of limitation of conditional fees. Sec. 434. Nature of heirs special. Sec. 435. Statute De Bonis. Sec. 436. In what sense limitation conditional. Sec. 437. Descent of conditional fees. Sec. 438. Executory devise after fee conditional. Section 430. introductory.— The law relating to condi- tional fees, which can now subsist even in England only in hereditaments other than in tenements, and, by analogy, in copyholds of manors in which there is no custom of entail, is a very obscure subject of research. The most eminent authorities are sometimes at variance, and the living tradition of modern practice is almost entirely wanting. Of the questions which have been raised, some, even before the statute De Donis, were probably matters of more curiosity than practical importance ; and others rather illustrate the difficulty of reconciling the rules governing these estates with general principles, than throw any doubt on the rules themselves.^ Sec. 431. Definition of conditional fee.— At common law, a conditional fee may be defined in limine as a species of estate limited upon or subject to a condition ; that is, an estate defeasible upon the breach of, or enlarged upon performance of, a stipulated condition. This definition, however, is subject to the observation that the rules gov- ■ See : Bract. 17, et sea.; 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 337. 377 378 CONDinOXAL FEES— HISTORY OF. [Book m. erning these fees rest upon a special basis of their own, and are not in accordance with the general rule applicable to estates upon condition.^ Sec. 432. Eaxly history of conditional fees.— Estates of this kind were called conditional fees, from the condition expressed or imphed in the condition that if the donee died without fulfiUing the condition, the land should revert to the owner. Such fees were strictly agreeable to the nature of feuds when they ceased to be estates for life and had not yet become absolute estates in fee- simple. These estates were usually created by hmiting the inheritance to particular heirs, exclusive of others ; as to the heirs of the donee's or grantee's body, and the lite. Under such limitation, as soon as the grantee had issue born his estate was supposed to become absolute, and the grantee could alien it. The practice early sprang up of aliening the conditional fees as soon as issue was born and afterwards repurchasing the lands, which gave a fee-simple absolute that would descend to the heirs in general, according to the course of the common law. The courts favored this subtle finesse of construction, and the nobility, to perpetuate possession in their own families, and fetter such alienations, procured the pas- sage of the statute De Donis ConditionaHbvs,^ which revived some of the feudal restraints placed upon aliena- tions, and enacted that from thenceforth the " will of the donor be observed, and that the tenements so given (to a man and the heirs of his body) should, at all events, go to the issue, if there were any, or, if none, should revert to the donor."' Under this statute it was held that the donor was invested with ultimate fee-simple of the land expectant on the failure of issue, and the grantee became tenant in fee-taU, without the power of alienation upon the birth of specified heirs, who inherited the estate.^ Sec. 433. Modeoflimitationof conditional fees.— The con- ditions admissible for the purpose of creating a condi- ' See : Anderson's L. Diet. 451. s.c. 14 N. W. Rep. 90 ; = Stat. 13 Edw., c. 1. 2B1. Com. 110-113. 2 See : Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa 60; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 11-15. Chap. X. § 434.] HEIES SPECIAL— NATURE OF. 379 tional fee are restricted to a single type, which always takes the form of a limitation expressed to be to the heirs of the body of the donee or donees, either generally or to a special class of such heirs. The word heirs limits a fee, or estate of inheritance, while the imposed restric- tion prevents the fee from, being a fee-simple in the proper sense of the term. The different forms assumed by this kind of limitation are as follows : (1) To the heirs of the body ; (2) to the heirs male of the body ; (3) to the heirs female of the body ; (■±) to the heirs of the body of the donee by a particular spouse ; ^ (5) to the heirs male of the body of the donee by a particular spouse ; (6) to the heirs female of the body of the donee by a particular spouse ; (7) to the heirs of the bodies of two persons law- fully married, or by possibility capable of lawful mar- riage, the two persons being both named as donees in the gift ; (8) the heirs male of the bodies of two such per- sons ; and (9) the heirs female of the bodies of two such persons.^ Sec. 434. Nature of heirs special.— Special heirs men- tioned in a limitation creating a conditional fee import not only that the heir must be a male or female, accord- ing to the class specified, but also that he must be able to deduce his descent solely through the specified class. Thus it is said by Littleton that " if lands be given to a man and his heirs males of his body, and he hath issue a daughter, who hath issue a son, and dieth, and after the donee dieth ; in this case the son of the daughter shall not inherit by the force of the entail ; because whoever shall inherit by the force of a gift in tail made to the heirs males, ought to convey his descent whole by the heirs males." ^ In similar restriction to a single sex, if attempted in a deed or feoffment to be imposed upon the heirs, as by the limitation to the heirs male, is void, and the grantee takes a fee-simple.* This construction ' The particular person designated ' See : Challis' Real Prop. 210. as such spouse need not neces- ''Litt.,S24. „j % os„ sarily be married to the donee See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 35a. at the time of the gift, but *Litt., §31. must by possibility be capable See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 27a. of such marriage. 3S0 STATUTE DE DONIS. [Book III. is arrived at by rejecting the word male upon the prin- ciple ut res magis valeat quam. pereat, it may rather have effect than be destroyed.^ Upon the same principle, if gavelkind lands be limited to a man and his eldest heirs, or if common-law lands be limited in a deed, or on a feoffment, to the person and the eldest heirs female of his body, the word eldest will be rejected to give effect to the limitation. In a will, however, a limitation to such person and his heirs male will, at common law, create an estate-tail male ; the words ' ' of his body " being supplied by construction of law.^ Sec. 435. statute De Bonis.— We have before seen that the principles of the common law have been adopted in this country only so far as they are applicable to the habits and conditions of our society, and are in harmony with the genius, spirit, and objects of our institutions.^ The direct object of the statute De Bonis was to place re- straints upon alienation and create perpetuities for the purpose of maintaining a landed aristocracy.* Such a purpose is entirely foreign to the genius and policy of our institutions. The general policy of this country does not encourage restraints upon the power of alienation of land.^ For this reason the statute Z>e Bonis is not appli- cable to the habits and condition of our society, nor in harmony with the spirit and genius of our institutions, and consequently is not in force as a part of the common law of this country.^ Sec. 436. in what sense limitation conditional.— The re- stricted nature of this limitation was, at a period so early as to be almost beyond the reach of history, construed by the courts as being in the nature of a condition, '^ and the limitation as being therefore in the nature of a limit- ation upon condition. And the courts seem to have re- ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 37a, 37b. 14 N. W. Rep. 90-93. See : Kerr's Adjudicated Words * 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) and Phrases and Applied Max- 337. ims, § . "4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 17. ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 37a. Pierson v. Lane, 60 lows. 60 ; s.o. See : Baker v. WaU, 1 Ld. Raym. 14 N. W. Rep. 90. 185. ' See : 4 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ' Pierson v. Lane, 60 lovra 60 ; s.o. ed.) 510, et seq. Chap. X. § 437.] DESCENT OF CONDITIONAL FEES. 381 garded the condition as to some extent uniting in itself contradictory characteristics ; being partly in the nature of a condition which, by its performance, would confirm, or enlarge, the estate; and partly in the nature of a con- dition always remaining liable, by a breach, to defeat the estate.^ For as soon as an heir of the designated class was born, post prolem suscitatam, this was held to be for some purposes a performance of the condition, and for some purposes to enlarge the conditional fee into a fee- simple. Thus it was held to enable the donee (1) to alien the lands as an estate of fee-simple absolute ; (2) to forfeit the estate, including under that word escheat by attainder of felony besides forfeiture for treason ; (3) to charge the estate with incumbrances, which were as indefeasible as if created by a tenant in fee-simple ; ^ and, (4) in the case of a gift either to a donee and his or her issue by a par- ticular wife or husband, or to two donees and their joint issue, birth of the prescribed issue had the effect of enlarg- ing the possible course of descent, so as to make it include issue of the donee, or of the survivor of two donees, by another wife or husband. If the donee of the conditional fee aliened before such issue was born, his alienation would bar his own issue, if born afterwards, giving the ahenee an estate which endured so long as such issue should exist ; but such alienation would not bar the donor of his possibility of reverter on failure of such Sec. 437. Descent of conditional fees.— The fulfillment of the condition specified in the limitation, by having issue of the prescribed class, was not an absolute fulfillment once and for all ; the estate was not thereby converted into a fee-simple for all purposes, and the condition for some purposes still remained on foot ; for if the donee after birth of the prescribed heir did not alien, but suf- fered the estate to descend, it followed the prescribed course of descent, and none but heirs of the prescribed class could take ; and these would take to the exclusion of the heir general, in case such heir happened not to be ' Chains' Real Prop. 210, 311. » 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19a. ■ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19a. 382 EXECUTORY DEVISE— FEE CONDITIONAL. [Book III. of the prescribed class. ^ That is to say, the special heir, per formam doni, is not necessarily identical with the heir general. This proposition involves an anomaly, seeing that by this means the course of descent by com- mon law could be diverted into a different channel. For example, if a man should die leaving two sons, and after- wards the elder son should die leaving only a daughter, in this case the daughter is the heir general of the first- mentioned person ; but the heir male is the younger son, and after his death his male issue. Under a limitation to the first-mentioned person and the heirs of his body, the younger son and his male issue would inherit, to the exclusion of the heir general. Similarly, if a man should die leaving a son and a daughter, the son, whether older or younger than the daughter, is the heir general ; but, under a limitation to the first-mentioned person and the heirs female of his body, the daughter, whether older or younger than the son, would inherit ; in this case also to the exclusion of the heir general. This doctrine of descent probably admits of no dispute in regard to con- ditional fees ; and it undoubtedly admits of no dispute so far as fees- tail are concerned.^ The heir of the prescribed class, coming in by descent, had, whether he had issue or not, exactly the same power or capacity to alienate, forfeit, and charge the estate, as the original donee had after birth of the prescribed issue. If the succession of 'the special heirs came to an end without any alienation having been made, the donor's possibility of reverter became an interest in possession. Sec. 438. Executory devise after fee oonditional.— This species of estate, though still popular in England, never found favor in this country. It is now rarely met with in practice, and the learning on the subject is largely archaic. The local statutes of the various states of the Union have replaced largely, if not entirely, the common- law classes of estates. The prevailing estate is a fee- simple, and the most common estate upon condition is the ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19a ; and See ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 24ar- Hars. note 4. 26a. 2 Litt., §§31-25. Chap. X. § 438.] STATE DECISIONS. 383 one created by mortgage. In some states, however, con- ditional fees formerly prevailed to a large extent, and a body of decision sprang up. Thus in the state of South Carolina it has been laid down by the courts that there can be no devise after a fee conditional.^ One reason for this is because such a limitation would be after an indefi- nite failure of issue ; ^ another reason for the rule is the fact that the statute De Bonis was never in force in South Carolina, and for that reason as soon as issue is born the absolute fee, with power of disposition, becomes vested in the tenant in possession. 1 Bedon v. Bedon, 2 Bail. (S. C.) L. Adams v. Chaplin, 1 Hill (S. C.) 231 ; Ch. 265, 268 ; Mazyck v. Vanderhorst, 1 Bail. Buistv. Dawes, 4 Strobh. (S. C.) (S. C.) Eq. 48 ; Eq. 37. Deas V. Horrey, 2 Hill (S. C.) Eq. ' Bedon v. Bedon, 2 Bail. (S. C.) L. 244; 331. CHAPTER XI. BASE FEES. Sec. 439. Definition of base fee. Sec. 440. Creation of base fees. Sec. 441. Determinable conterminous with base fee. Sec. 443. Merger of base fees. Sec. 443. Descent of base fees. Section 439. Deflnitloq of base fee.— A base fee may be defined as one which has a qualification annexed to it, and which must be determined whenever such annexed quali- fication requires.-^ The proprietor of a base fee has all the rights of the owner of an estate in fee-simple until his estate is determined by the qualification sub j oined thereto. ^ The earliest attempt to define a base fee is that given by Plowden, who says that " a third estate may be called a base fee, that is, where A has a good and absolute estate of fee-simple in land, and B has another estate of fee in the same land, which shall descend from heir to heir, but which is base in respect of the fee of A, as being younger than the fee of A, and not of absolute perpetuity, as the fee of A is."^ The conditions laid down in this defi- nition can only be fulfilled by the conversion of a fee-tail into a fee descendible to the heirs general, by some method which does not destroy the remainder or rever- sion previously subsisting upon the fee-tail ; for no fee descendible to the heirs general which arises by mere limitation can have subsisting upon it any remainder or ' Anderson's L. Diet. 451 ; 'Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd. 1 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 233. 557. « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb; ' Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd. 547, 1 Prest. Est. 431. 557. See : Paterson v. EUis, 11 Wend. « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 18a. (N. Y.) 359, 577 ; 384 Chap. XI. § 440.] BASE FEES— CREATION OF. 335 Sec. 440. Creation of base fees.— A base fee is either (1) the estate taken by the grantee under an assurance by a tenant in tail which is effectual to bar the issue in tail,^ but is ineffectual to bar the remainder, or reversion, expectant upon the estate-tail ; or (2) when an estate-tail is barred to the same extent, but by the mere operation of law without the execution of an assurance, a base fee is the estate taken by a person entitled to the benefit of such a legal bar. The various base fees, and the methods by which they might arise at common law, are as follows : 1. At common law a base fee in lands might arise by the operation of a fine levied by a tenant in tail, who was not also entitled to the remainder, or reversion, in fee- simple expectant on the estate-tail. The operation of such a fine barred not only the issue of the person by whom it was levied, but all issue inheritable under the estate-tail.^ 2. In England, since the passage of the Fines and Eecoveries Act, a base fee may arise by the operation of the assurance made by a tenant in tail, which is insuffi- cient to bar the remainder, or reversion, upon the estate- tail, but is sufficient to bar the issue in tail.^ 3. A rent-charge already in esse, under a limitation in fee-simple, admits of being entailed within the statute ' Or at least it has the effect to put all persons, including the the issue in tail, even after his crown, whose estates are to right has accrued to any pos- take effect after or in defeas- session, to the right of entry. ance of any such tail. ' See : 1 Prest. Est. 437, 438. See : Fines and Eecoveries Act, ' By the Fines and Recoveries Act, §§ 15, 34, 40. every tenant in tail, whether Such consent is not needed, if in possession, remainder, con- the tenant in tail is also en- tingency, or otherwise, after titled to an immediate re- December 31, 1833, by any as- mainder or reversion in fee. surance, other than a will, by Id., § 34. which he could have made the Here the word " fee" means fee- disposition, if his estate were simple. The estate-tail will an estate at law in fee-simple not be barred, except in so far absolute, to dispose of for an as the disposition effectually estate in fee-simple absolute, or passes an estate to the grantee. ^ for any less estate, the lands In cases where the grantee Jias entailed as against all persons power to disclaim his estate, claiming the lands entailed by his subsequent disclaimer will forceof any estate-tail vested prevent the disposition from in the person making the dis- having any effect under the position, and also, with the act. , t t> consent of the person, if any, See : Peacock v. Eastland, L. R. who under the act is protector 10 Eq. 17. of the settlement, as against 25 386 METHODS OF CEEATING BASE FEES. [BOOK III. De Bonis. A tenant in tail of a rent-charge under such an entail might at common law, by suffering a common recovery, have obtained a fee-simple of the rent-charge, in all cases in which, if he had been a tenant in tail of lands, he might have obtained a fee-simple of the lands.. But a tenant in tail of a rent-charge may also be made de novo upon the limitation of the rent itself, and with- out the creation of any remainder over in fee-simple. Such a tenant in tail stands in a different position from that of a tenant in tail subsisting under an entail of a rent-charge which was in esse as a fee-simple before the making of the entail. By suffering a common recovery, he did not acquire a fee-simple, but only barred the issue inheritable under the entail. That is to say, he acquired a base fee ; and upon a failure of issue so inheritable, the rent became extinguished in the land.^ 4. At common law, before the passing of the statutes of Henry VIII., ^ a base fee in lands could have arisen by the operation of a common recovery suffered by a tenant in tail, when the remainder, or reversion, in fee-simple expectant upon the estate-tail was vested in the crown. Under such circumstances the recovery would have barred the issue in tail, but not the crown, by reason of the crown's prerogative.^ The statute of Henry VIII. enacted that such a recovery should not bind the heirs in tail. 5. During the interval which elapsed between the statute of 26 Henry VIII.,* whereby fees-tail were made liable to forfeiture for high treason, and the passage of the statute 33 & 34 Victoria,^ whereby forfeiture was abolished, under the law in England a base fee in lands would have arisen in favor of the crown, upon the attainder of a tenant in tail for high treason, which endured so long as there was in existence either the donee in tail or any issue capable of having inherited under the entail.® 1 Challis' Real Prop. 365, 266 ; * 36 Hen. VIH., c. 13 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.)398a, Butler's ' 33 & 84 Vict., c. 33. note 3 : ^ See : Stone v. Newman, Cro.' Car, 1 Brest. Conv. 3. 437 ; « 34 & 85 Hen. VIH., c. 39. Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd. ' Dyer, 33a, pi. 1. 547, 557. Chap. XI. § 4=41.] METHODS OF CREATING BASE FEES. 387 6. Before the extinction of villeinage, if lands had been given in fee-tail to a villein, the lord of the villein would have acquired, by entry upon the lands, a base fee con- terminous with what would have been the duration of the fee-tail if it had remained in the villein and his heirs inheritable under the entail.^ 7. According to Plowden, under certain circumstances a base fee might arise when the issue in tail was out- lawed for felony, and in the lifetime of his ancestor obtained a pardon. The result would of course be the same upon an attainder by judgment. In such a case it has been suggested that the heir of the donor could not enter, because there was still living issue of the donee ; and the issue could not lawfully enter under the entail, for the want of inheritable blood, which was not restored by the pardon. In the case referred to by Plowden, the issue entered ; and some contended that he had gained by his entry a base fee conterminous with the entail, but others thought he had gained only an estate for his own life.^ 8. Another species of base fee, which is not only deter- minable upon the happening of the event which would have determined the estate-tail in which it had its origin, but liable to be determined, in the proper sense of the phrase, is where any assurance is made by a tenant in tail which purports to convey his whole estate, but is hot effectual to bar the issue in tail of their right, and there is an entry of the issue in tail after the death of the tenant in tail who made the assurance.^ Sec. 441. Determinable conterminous with base fee.— An estate of the like duration with a base fee may arise as a determinable fee by an express limitation to a man and his heirs so long as a third person shall have heirs of his body ; '- but it may be well doubted whether if such third ' 1 Co.- Litt. (19th .ed.) 18a. s.c. 2 Ld. Raym. 778 ; 7 Mod. If the lord subsequ3ntly enfran- 18, overruling Took v. GlasB- chised the villein the enfran- cock, 1 Saund. 260 ; chlsement would not affect the Goodright v. Mead, 3 Burr. 1703 ; duration of the base fee. 1 Co. Doe v. Whichelo, 8 T. R. 211 ; Litt. (19th ed.) 117a. Doe v. Rivers, 7 T. R. 276. 2 Walsingham's Case, 3 Plovt^d. 547, ^ See : Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd. 557. 547, 557. ' See : MachU v. aark, 2 Salk. 619; 388 MERGER OF BASE FEES. [Book III. person be living at the date of the limitation it can take effect in possession until after his death, because of the well-known maxim that nemo est hseres viventis, no man is heir to the living.^ If this view is correct, such a limitation during the life of said third person must be by the way either of executory limitation or a contingent remainder. This occurs where a tenant in tail, not being seized of the immediate reversion in fee, has levied a fine with proclamations to a stranger in fee. The issue under the entail are barred by the fine of their ancestor from claiming the estate ; and the stranger has a fee so long as there are issue under the entail ; by this process the character of the estate-tail is changed and becomes a qualified or base fee, determinable on failure of the issue under the entail. Sec. 442. Merger of base fees.— At common law, abase fee would merge ta the remainder or reversion in fee- simple, both estates being vested in the same person without the existence of any intermediate estate.^ Hence, if a tenant in tail, having also an immediate re- mainder or reversion in fee-simple, by a fine vested in him- self a base fee, the latter estate was destroyed by merger, and all incumbrances affecting the remainder or reversion were let in. They were technically said to be accelerated. But a purchaser could not rely upon this as a valid ob- jection against a title in fee-simple depending upon a fine levied by a tenant in tail, without showing that the re- version was in fact affected by some incumbrance.^ Sec. 443. Deseentofbasefees.— According to the theory of base fees as outlined in Plowden's definition, hereto- fore given,* when a base fee and a reversion in fee-simple thereupon subsist at the same time in the same land, the base fee descends " from heir to heir." There being nothing hmiting the descent to special heirs, it must be taken to be the general heirs. Preston says that when an estate-tail was turned to a base fee by fine, the descent of the base fee followed the common- ' See : Post, § 494. 3 1 prggt. Abst. 7. ■ 3 Prest. Conv. 340. -i See : Ante, § 439. Chap. XI. § 443.] DESCENT OF BASE FEES. 389 law course, going to the general and not the special heir.^ It follows, as a fundamental rule, that the com- mon-law heir can be displaced only by means of special limitation referring to the heirs of the body ; ^ because no limitation existed. The same doctrine applies to all base fees which arise without express limitation ; but it does not necessarily apply to a base fee arising by express limitation, including base fees created by the alienation of a tenant in tail in remainder. It has been said that "it is remarkable that this question has been little noticed. Though it of course applies to estates in tail male and tail female, as well as to estates in tail general, ' yet it does not refer to the distinction between the heir male or female and the heir general, but to the distinc- tion between the heir of the body — whether general, male, or female — and the heir general. It seems to have been always tacitly assumed, without the necessity of explicit mention, that when the law, whether mediately or immediately, divests a fee-tail by barring the issue in tail, the novel fee thus created will, in the hands of the person entitled to the benefit of the bar, follow the ordinary course of descent prescribed by the common law ; that is, will go to the heir general."^ ' 1 Prest. Abstr. 342, 344. special heirs inheritable under Citing : Beaumont's Case, 9 Co. the entail." 1 Prest. Est. 475. 138 ; 2 chaUis' Real Prop. 371. Baker v. Willis, Cro. Car. 476. Compare the resolution of the ' " The rule of the common law is, judges, that the Isle of Man, you shall not make a person though no part of the king- heir, or give him the character dom, yet, being granted under or rights of an heir, by a spe- the Great Seal of England to cial limitation, unless he be the Sir John Stanley and his heirs, heir by the rule of law. The was descendible according to statute De Bonis gave the the courts of the common law. donor, with reference to estate- 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 9a ; tail, the power of making 4 Inst. 384. CHAPTEE XII. QUALIFIED FEE-SIMPLE. Sec. 444. Definition of qualified fee-simplQ. Sec. 445. Power of tenant of qualified fee-simple over the estate. Sec. 446. Qualified fee distinguished from other fees. Sec. 447. Objections to qualified fees-simple. Sec. 448. The doctrine of Blake v. Hynes. Sec. 449. Nature and mode of Umitation. Sec. 450. Cotu^e of descent of a qualified fee-simple estate. Sec. 451. Alienation of a qualified fee-simple estate. Sec. 444. Definition of qualified fee-simple.— A qualified fee-Simple is a fee "which has a qualification subjoined thereto, and which terminates whenever the qualification is at an end.^ Thus where an estate is limited to a per- son and his heirs with a qualification annexed to it, by which it is provided that the estate must terminate whenever that qualification is at an end, this limitation creates a qualified fee-simple ; as where land is granted to A and his heirs, tenants of a designated tract of land, whenever the heirs of A cease to be tenants of that tract their estate terminates.^ And where a person holds an estate to himself and his heirs, as long as B has heirs to his body, this is a species of qualified fee-simple, liable to be terminated at any time on the failure of heirs of the body of B.3 Sec. 445. Power of tenant of qualified fee-simple over the estate.— The proprietor of a qualified fee-simple has the ' Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. Whart. (Pa.) 427 ; E. Co., 94 111. 93 ; McLean v. Baree, 35 Wis. 36 ; People V. White, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) United States v. Reere, 5 DiU. C. 38 ; C. 411 ; Lott V. Wyckoflf, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 3 Bl. Com. 109. 575 ; 2 1 Inst. 37a. Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97b. 390 Chap. XII. §§ 446, 447.] QUALIFIED FEE-SIMPLE. 391 same rights and privileges over his estate, till the quali- fication upon which it is limited is at an end, as he would have if he were a tenant in fee-simple. ^ Sec. 446. Qualified fee-simple distinguished from other fees.— A qualified fee-simple differs in a marked manner from a simple determinable fee,^ since it is limited by a restriction to a particular class of heirs, and not by reference to happenings or a future event. A qualified fee-simple differs from a conditional fee in this, that so long as it endures, the power of the tenants is neither enlarged nor bridged by anything in the nature of the performance of a condition. It differs from a fee-tail, among other things, in the fact that the issue never had any claim against the alienation, by whatever assurance it might be effected, of the ancestor. It differs from a base fee in particulars that will be made manifest in the next chapter. This species of fee-simple has been treated by Preston in his work on Estates,^ where he makes it quite plain that it was his intention to place qualified fees-simple in a separate class, and not merely to classify them among the other fees usually collected under the terms " quali- fied fees," or "qualified or base fees," which terms are commonly used to include all fees except fees-simple or absolute and conditional fees. Sec. 44T. Objections to qualified fees-simple.— There has been considerable discussion over the question whether there is such an estate as a qualified fee-simple. Black- stone * throws the weight of his authority on the negative of the question, but the authority of Littleton and of Lord Coke has been said to establish in the most decisive manner the certainty of its existence.^ The rare occur- rence of an example of this species of estate has led to this difference of opinion. Some writers have gone so far as to declare that a case of the kind never had ' Walsingham's Case, 2 Plow. 557. have the quality of ordinary * Preston recognizes a material determinable fees. difference between qualified 1 Prest. Est. 467. fees-simple and other deter- ^ 1 Prest. Est. 449-475. minable fees, but thought that ■* 3 Bl. Com. 223. for purposes of alienation they ^ 1 Prest. Est. 469. 392 DOCTRINE OF BLAKE v. HYNES. [BOOK ni. occurred and never would occur in practice. But in May, 1884, a case came before the House of Lords, on an appeal from Ireland, which seems to go far towards setting the question at rest. This was the case of Blake v. Hynes.^ Sec. 448. The doctrine of Blake v. Hynes.— The circum- stances in the case of Blake v. Hynes were as follows : In 1857, Columbus O'Flanagan died leaving a will which was duly probated, and his real and personal estate was subsequently administered in the Irish Court of Chancery. His co-heirs at law were two nieces, Eliza and Jane Dowell. In the course of the administration proceedings an order was made, by consent of all the parties, in 1859, by which it was ordered that notwithstanding the pro- bate, which was declared valid, of the testator's will, the right of his co-heirs as to certain lands devised should be the same as if he had died intestate as to the said lands. Jane Dowell, who was a lunatic at the time of the testa- tor's death, died insane and intestate as to her moiety in the said lands. Proceedings were instituted in 18Y3, under the Irish Lunacy Law, for the administration of her real and personal estate. At the time of her death her heirs at law were Edward Blake and Thomas Hynes, claiming respectively under two deceased aunts of the lun- atic, who, if they had been living, would have been her co-heirs. At the same time the heir at law of the testa- tor O'Flanagan was Eoderick O'Connor. Among the questions presented for determination was whether Jane Dowell had taken her moiety, to which she was entitled under the terms of the order of 1859, to all intents as a purchaser. If she had, upon her death intestate, the land would have descended to her heirs at law ; but if she took by virtue of the said order of the court, the lands would descend as though the original testator, Columbus O'Flanagan, had been the last purchaser. In which case the moiety in dispute would pass to 'Roderick O'Connor, as being his heir at law at the time of Jane Dowell's death. The Master of the Rolls held that she took as a purchaser, and that her moiety descended to 'li. E. (Ir.) 11 Eq. 417 ; s.c. 11 L. R. (Ir.) 284. Chap. XII. § 449.] LIMITATION— NATURE AND MODE. 393 her co-heirs at law. This decision was unanimously reversed by the Court of Appeals in Ireland. ^ The case was taken on appeal to the House of Lords for the de- cision of the Court of Appeals. The question of the validity of the limitations was explicitly raised, argued before the House, and the respondent's counsel rested their argument in favor of its validity upon the author- ity of Littleton, Lord Coke, and Preston. At the con- clusion of the arguments, the House of Lords reversed its judgment, and the appeal was subsequently com- promised before any judgment had been delivered. Sec. 449. Nature and mode of limitation.— At common law a fee may be explicitly limited to a man and the heirs of any ancestor, in the paternal line, whose heir he is. The limitations must be made in this form by a feoffee who is seized in fee-simple subject to a condition to re-in- feoff "many men"^ jointly in fee-simple, in case all of them should die before any feoffment has been made pursuant to the condition. Under such circumstances the feoffment should be made to the heir of the last sur- vivor, habendum to him and the heirs of the aforesaid survivor.^ The simplest example that has been given to this kind of limitation would occur if the heir of the last survivor should be a son ; in which case we should arrive at a limitation to a man and his heirs ex parte paterna, so as to exclude altogether from the succession the heirs ex parte materna, who, if he had taken a fee- simple absolute, since he would have taken it by purchase and not by descent, would have been entitled to succeed on a failure of the heirs ex parte paterna. ' Hitherto the question as to the Dowell in respect to the said validity at the common law of lands) it would have been the a limitation in the form above duty of those carrying out the styled a qualified fee-simple arrangements to see that tho was not explicitly raised; but descent of the lunatic's (moiety the Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, in in the) lands was not altered the course of his judgment, from that which was stipuf made the following remark, lated for ; namely, the descent which bears very closely upon of lands taken by her as co- it : " If conveyances had been heiress of Columbus O'Flan- settled (with a view to carry agan under an intestacy." into effect the directions of the ^ Plusors homes. Order of 20th of May, 1859, as ' Litt., § 354. to the rights of Eliza and Jane See : 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 320b, 394 DESCENT AND ALIENATION. [Book III. Sec. 450. Course of descent of a qualified fee-simple estate.— The course of descent of a qualified fee-simple does not differ, so long as the estate endures, from the course of descent which would have been taken by a fee-simple absolute. This is upon the hypothesis that it had actually descended from the specified ancestor. In certain cases, however, it may be said that the quantum of the estate differs,^ the descent being restricted to one class only of the heirs, and the estate determining with the exhaustion of this class. Sec. 451. Alienation of qualified fee-simple.— There is nothing in the nature of a qualified fee-simple to suggest that the guarantee, or the inheritor of a qualified fee- simple, is subject to any restraint upon his power to alienate the estate. The question has been raised, however, as to what estate is taken by the person to whom, upon alienation, the estate is conveyed, and whether in his hands the estate becomes a fee-simple absolute. Preston has repeatedly expressed the opinion, that the grantee, or the inheritor, of a qualified fee-simple has, for the pur- pose of alienation, only a determinable fee ; that he can- not convey a fee-simple ; and that the estate in the hands of an assignee will determine, if and when the particu- lar class of the heirs of the grantee, to whom it was originally limited, should come to an end. He also holds that, upon the determination of the estate, there is no escheat to the lord (which is peculiar to fees-simple abso- lute) but a reverter to the heirs of the person by whom the re-feoffment was made.^ ' There is a difference, at all estate of a tenant for his own events, in the sense in which life, an estate par autre vie is said ' 1 Prest. Est. 471. to be less in quantum than the See, also, pp. 430, 466, CHAPTEE XIII. ESTATES IN TAIL. Sec. 453. Definition of an estate-tail. Sec. 453. "What construed an estate-tail. Sec. 454. Distinguished from estates determinable. Sec. 455. Origin of estates-tail. Sec. 456. Same — Statute De Bonis. Sec. 457. Same — Effect of construction. Sec. 458. Attempt to defeat the statute De Bonis. Sec. 459. Recognition in the United States. Sec. 460. Kinds of tails. Sec. 461. Same — General and special estates-tail. Sec. 462. Same — Same — Limitation in tail special valid where. Sec. 463. Same — Estates-tail male and female. Sec. 464. Same — Estate in frank-marriage. Sec. 465. Same — Fees-tail with conditional limitations. Sec. 466. Same — Estates-tail after possibility. Sec. 467. How estates-tail are created. Sec. 468. Same — ^Words of procreation necessary. Sec. 469. Same — Methods of creation — a. By deed. Sec. 470. Same — Same — Same — "Heirs" nomen collectivum. Sec. 471. Same — Same — b. By devise. Sec. 472. Same — Same — Same — Words creating estate-tail. Sec. 473. Same — Same — Same — Devise to several and survivors. Sec. 474. Same — Same— Same — Remainder over on faOure of issue. Sec. 475. Same — Same — Same — Effect of reversion on indefinite failure. Sec. 476. Same — Same — Same — Rules of construction. Sec. 477. Same — Same — Same — Intention of testator. Sec. 478. Same — Same — Same — Expressions which carry estate-tail. Sec. 479. Same — Same — Same — Fee reduced by context. Sec. 480. Same — Same — Same — Doctrine of Price v. Taylor. Sec. 481. Same — Same — Same — Devise ia tail not enlarged by im- plication. Sec. 482. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Wight v. Thayer. Sec. 483. Same — Words in frank-marriage sufficient. Sec. 452. Deflnitionofanestate-tail.— A fee-tail is simply a conditional fee at the common law, so modified by the 395 396 WHAT AN ESTATE-TAIL. [BOOK III. statute De Donis Conditionalibus, known as the statute of Westminster 11./ that the estate can descend only to certain classes of heirs which are held not to take a con- ditional fee-simple, but a particular estate which has been denominated a fee-tail, the donor holding the ultimate fee-simple expectant on the failure of issue ; in other words, the reversion.^ This estate corresponds with the feudum talliatum of the feudal law, — that is, a fee from which the general heirs are taille or cut off ; ^ and is thought to have been derived from the Roman system of restricting estates.* Sec. 453. What construed an estate-tail. — Whenever it appears in the instrument creating the estate that it was intended that the issue of the first taker should take by inheritance in a direct line, and in a regular order and course of descent, so long as his posterity should endure, and an estate in fee or in tail is given in remainder, upon an indefinite failure of issue, then the estate first created will be construed to be an estate- tail. ^ But if it appears that the limitation over was not postponed until an in- definite failure of issue, but on failure of children only, or on failure of issue within a given time, the estate will not belong to the class known as estates-tail.^ Sec. 454. Distinguished from estates determinable.— '13 Edw. I., c. 1, passed about 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 31. 1385. 6 Outland v. Bowen, 115 Ind. 150 ; 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) s.o. 7 Am. St. Rep. 430 ; 17 N. 64, etseq. E. Rep. 281. See : Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa Citing : Shimer v. Mann, 99 Ind. 60 ; s.c. 14 N. W. Rep. 90 ; 190 ; s.c. 50 Am. Rep. 83 ; Maslia v. Thomas, 8 Gill (Md.) King v. Rea, 56Ind. 1 ; 18; Huxford v. MiUigan, 50 Ind. Hall V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 548 ; 533 ; Tipton v. La Rose, 37 Ind. 484 ; Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1 Potts' Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 168 ; Gray) 384, 286 ; Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ; (Pa.) 447. Ransley v. Stott, 36 Pa. St. 136 ; « Outland v. Bowen, 115 Ind. 150 ; Wright, Ten. 187. s.o. 7 Am. St. Rep. 430 ; 17 N. 5 2 Bl. Com. 113. E. Rep. 281. See : Paterson v. Ellis, 11 Wend. Citing : AUender v. Sussan, 33 (N. Y.) 259, 378. Md. 11 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 171 ; = Paterson v. EUis, 11 Wend. (N. Nightingale i). Burrell, 33 Mass. Y.) 259, 378. (15 PiSk.) 104 ; •• See : 3 Bl. Com. 113n; HiU v. Hill, 74 Pa. St. 173 ; s.c. 2 Co. Inst. 333 ; 15 Am. Rep. 545. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 14, etseq.; Chap. XIII. §§455, 456.] ORIGIN OF ESTATES-TAIL. 397 While it is necessary to create an estate-tail that the limitation should be to the heirs of the body of the donee, yet all limitations of this kind are not estates-tail. Thus, where the heirs who may take are unlimited, but the duration of the estate given is measured or limited by the length of time that the line of succession of heirs of the donee's body, or of another person named, may last, does not create an estate-tail but a fee-simple determin- able.i Sec. 455. Origin of estates-tail.— It has been said that the origin of estates-tail dates back to the time of the Saxons, who borrowed it from the laws of Eome, accord- ing to which lands might be entailed upon children and freedmen and their descendants, with restrictions on alienation. The custom of settling lands upon males in preference to females, and thus entailing lands upon the male issue, was in use before the time of Alfred the Great ; ^ and the custom of conveying or devising lands to a man and the issue of a particular marriage, or to a man and the issue of his body, either male or female, was continued after the Conquest.^ These estates were the conditional fees of the common law. The readiness with which these conditional fees could be converted into a fee-simple, as heretofore set out,* led to the enactment of the famous statute of Westminster 11.^ Sec. 456. Same— statute De Bonis.— The converting of conditional fees into fees-simple destroyed the reversions, made them descendible according to the rules of the common law, diminished the property of the landed gentry, and frequently defeated the object of the original donation. It was in order to perpetuate their possessions in their own families that the nobility procured the passage of the statute De Bonis ; which, after reciting the rights of alienation assumed by the donees of condi- tional fees, enacts "that the will of the giver, according 1 3 Bl. Com. 113; * See : Ante, § 433. 3 Prest. Est. 358-360, 361. ' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 31 ; ^ See : Barringt. Stat. 113 ; 3 Bl. Com. 113 ; 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 31. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 11, 13. 3 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 140. 398 STATUTE DE BONIS. [Book III. to the form in the deed of gift manifestly expressed, shall be from henceforth observed ; so that they to whom the land (tenementum) was given under such condition shall have no power to alien the land (tenementum) so given, but that it shall remain unto the issue of them to whom it was given after their death, or shall revert to the giver or his heirs if issue fail, either by an absolute default of issue, or, after the birth of issue, by its sub- sequent extinction. " ^ This law only repeated what the law of tenures had said before, that the tenure of the grant should be observed ; and the judges in construing it held that where an estate was limited to a man and the heirs of his body, this limitation did not create a conditional fee, but divided the estate, giving a particular estate to the donee, called an estate-tail, subject to change, and a reversion in fee remained in the donor. ^ It is said byEeeves^ that the construction of the judges upon the wording of the statute was, that the donee should no longer have a fee conditional, as before, but that the fee should be entaille, cut, or divided, and he should have afeudum talliatum. Indeed, this seems to have been foreseen by the makers of the act ; for in the same parliament, and before the statute could have been considered in the courts of law, we find the term feudum talliatum as expressing an estate then existing in the law. It appears, that very early after the statute the judges bad gone a great way in pursuing its intention ; ■ Per hoc, quod nullus sit exitus tenemento) so given upon con- omnino, vel si aliquis exitus dition, after the death of his fuerit, per mortem deficiet, wife, by the law of England, herede hujusmo diexitus de- nor the issue of the second ficiente. The English version husband and wife shall succeed is here unintelligible. 1 Stat. in the inheritance, but imme- Eev., p. 42. diately after the death of the The effect of the first paragraph husband and wife, to whom is to destroy the threefold the land (tenementum) was so capacity which the tenant of a given, it shall come to their conditional fee acquired by issue, or return unto the giver, having issue of the prescribed or his heir, as before is said." class, to alienate, to forfeit by See : 3 Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d attainder, and to charge with ed.) 164, 165. incumbrances. ' Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 115 ; "Heithcr shall the second Tnss- Willion «. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 348; band of any such woman," 3 Inst. 335. that is, of a female donee in " 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) special tail, " from henceforth 166. have everything in the land (m Chap. XIII. § 457.] CONSTRUCTION— EFFECT. 399 for they not only cut a fee-tail out of a fee-simple, but they again divided the fee-tail. For instance, if a person took land by purchase to him and his wife, and to the issue begotten by them in lawful matrimony, nothing would here accrue to the purchasers but a freehold for their lives and a fee to their issue ; if they had no issue, the fee would remain in the person of the donor till they had issue, and if the purchaser had no issue, or the issue failed, the land reverted to the donor. ^ In this con- struction they seemed entirely justified by the terms of the statute ; for it speaks of the land not as descending to the issue but as remaining,^ or reverting, and, not- withstanding the term descendere in the writ given by the act, it seems to consider the issue and the donor as in the same light. Sec. 457. Same— Effect of construction.— In consequence of this construction put upon the statute De Bonis by the judges, estates thus limited are not conditional ; nor is the right of entry of the donor on failure of issue of the donee considered as arising from a breach of the condi- tion, but as a right of reverter accruing to the donor on the particular expiration of the estate granted. The judges had previously held that a donation of this kind created a conditional fee ; the statute declares that it vests a state of inheritance in the donee, and some par- ticular heirs of his to whom it must descend, notwith- standing any act of the ancestor ; thus creating in the donor a reversion expectant on the determination of the estate limited.^ The modifications thus introduced into a conditional fee by this statute refer chiefly to the power of the donee, or tenant in tail for the time being, by alienation, to bar the succession of his issue and the reversion to the donor. We have already seen * that at common law the issue could be barred even before birth, but that the donor's reversion could not be barred until after the birth of inheritable issue. The statute De ' Berth., fol. 93. WiUion v. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 342, * An estate ad remanetiam, in 348 ; Glanville, signifies an estate in 3 Inst. 335. fee. Litt. 7, c. 1. * See : Ante, § 433. " Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 115 ; 400 DEFEATING STATUTE. [BOOK III. Donis enacted that in future no such alienation should be a bar either to the succession of the issue or to the re- version of the donor. It did not create any new estate, but, by disaffirming the supposed performance of the con- dition, preserved the fee to the issue, while there was issue to take it, and the reversion to the donor when the issue failed. 1 It is to be observed further that the statute had the effect of preventing descent of the fee to persons not included in the original form of the gift, which, under certain circumstances, was permitted by the com- mon law. Sec. 458. Attempt to defeat the statute De Donis.— The numberless evil consequences which followed from the restriction imposed by this statute furnish no small part of the difficulties to which real property afterwards be- came subject.^ Among the evil effects of the statute was the withdrawing of land from commerce ; the de- frauding of purchasers by secret entails ; the exempting of lands from forced sale for payment of debts ; and loss to the crown of a restraint upon treasonable practices through the forfeiture of estate by attainder of high treason. These evil effects of the statute soon became manifest, and there was a general demand for its repeal. But the landed barons, for whose benefit the statute De Donis had been passed, successfully resisted every at- tempt at change, and after an endurance of upwards of two hundred years, it was finally evaded in the reign of Edward IV., by a contrivance of the courts,^ " in the exercise of their Pretorian authority,"* enabling the tenant to change his fee-tail into a fee-simple.^ This object was accomplished, to a limited extent, by levying fines, and more completely by means of common re- coveries ; both of which processes are sufficiently treated in a succeeding chapter.^ ' 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 337a, Butler's = 3 Bl. Com. 116 ; note 3. 3 Prest. Est. 454. 2 See : 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. See : Partington's Case, 10 Co. (3d ed.) 166, et seq. 37a ; * See : 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d Taltarum's Case, Y. B. 13 Edw. ed.) 324:, et seq. IV. 19. * See : 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 143. « See : Post, §§ 533, 583, et seq. Chap. XIII. § 459.] STATUTE IN THIS COUNTRY. 401 Sec. 459. Becognition in the United States.— Estates-tail were introduced into this country with our elements of the common law, as modified by the statute De Donis, and became the general law of the land in the thirteen original states/ with the exception of South Carolina, where a fee-simple conditional at common law existed as an estate from early times. ^ In those states where estates-tail prevailed they could be barred by fines and recoveries.^ But estates-tail were so manifestly opposed to our Republican institutions and the policy of our law, which promoted the free alienation of land, they were either prohibited by statute, or turned into estates in fee- simple absolute.* In some of the original states, how- ' See : Allyn v. Mather, 9 Conn. 114; Chappell V. Brewster, Kirby (Conn.) 175 ; Wellas V. Olcott, 1 Kii-by (Conn.) 118; Atlin V. Bunce, 1 Root (Conn.) 96; Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 302 ; Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John. (N. Y.) 169 ; Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 3-34; S.C. 5 Am. Deo. 66; Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 498, 500 ; Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ; Holoomb V. Lake, 24 N. J. L. (4 Zab.) 686 ; Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 285 ; Den V. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (.5 Halst.) 39 ■ Pollock V. Speidel, 17 Ohio St. 439; Price V. Taylor, 28 Pa. St 95 ; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 105 ; Lyle V. Richards, 9 Serg. & R. fPa.) 332, 330 : Giddings v. Smith, 15 Vt. 344 ; Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 52 U. S. (11 How.) 297 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 703. New Jersey statute of 1799. — It seems that the statute of New Jersey, of June, 1799, abolish- ing all English statutes, did not abolish estates-tail, they being recognized, and the statute De Donis supplied by the statute of 1784. Pat. 54, § 3. 26 See : Den v. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (5 Halst.) 89. ^ Murrell v. Mathews, 3 Bay (S. C.) 397 • Wright V. Herron, 5 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 441. " See : Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 303 ; Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (13 Cush.) 130 ; Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 515 ; Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 34 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 66 ; Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 498, 500; JeweU V. Warner, 35 N. H. 170 ; Den V. Schenck, 8 N. J. L. (3 Halst.) 39 ; McGregor v. Comstock, 17 N. Y. 163; Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John. (N. Y.) 169 ; Lyle V. Richards, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 330 ; De Witt V. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 431 ; Croxall V. Sherrerd, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 383 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 573 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 314. Fines and recoveries were abol- ished in New York in 1830. See : McGregor v. Comstock, 17 N. Y. 163. * See : Allyn v. Mather, 9 Conn. 114; Allen V. Craft, 109 Ind. 476 ; s.c. 58 Am. Rep. 425 ; 9 N. E. Rep. 919 ; 7 West Rep. 516 ; Posey V. Budd, 21 Md. 477 ; Watkins v. Sears, 3 Gill (Md.) 493; 402 KINDS OF TAILS. [Book IIL ever, like Pennsylvania ^ and Massachusetts,^ and prob- ably others, such estates are still recognized. But even in those states where they are still recognized, estates- tail are subject to be barred by deed, and also by com- mon recovery.^ Sec. 460. Kinds of tails.— Estates-tail may be divided into two general classes, with respect to the heirs that are to take. Thus they may be limited generally to the heirs of one's body, in which case the estate granted is called an estate-tail general ; or they may be limited to particular heirs of the body, as to the heirs of one's body begotten upon the body of a certain named spouse, in which case the estate granted is called an estate-tail special. Such JeweUu. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ; Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J. L. (10 Vr.) 373, 379 ; Den V. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (5 Halst.) 39; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 480 ; Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 4 N. y. 9; Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 35 ; Omdoff V. Turman, 2 Leigh (Va.) 200 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 608 ; Croxall V. Sherrerd, 73 U. S. (5 Wall.) 368 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 572. De OoBis not law of western states.— The statute De Bonis never has been a part of the law of many of the western and southern states. See : Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa 60 ; s.c. 14 N. W. Rep. 90 ; Jordan v. Roach, 33 Miss. 481 ; Rowland •;;. Warren, 10 Greg. 139. Same — Mississippi doctrine. — "As early as the year 1807, all the statutes of England and Great Britain not re-enacted were, by express enactment of the Leg- islature, excluded from oper- ation within the territory (Hutch. Dig. 65) ; and when the act of June 13, 1823, con- cerning conveyances, was passed, neither the statute of Westminster, the statute De Donis, nor the statute of wills was in force within this com- monwealth : the whole doc- trine, therefore, in regard to estates-tail and executory de- vises, which was engrafted upon the statutes above named, never had existence in this state by any express or positive legislative enactment." Jordan v. Roach, 33 Miss. 481. ' Reinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St. 488; Price V. Taylor, 38 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 105 ; Potts' Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 172. See : Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 486; Gable v. Daub, 40 Pa. St. 317, 339; Guthrie's Appeal, 37 Pa. St. 9. ' In Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 284, 286, it is said that " estates-tail, with their legal incidents, have been too long and too often recognized in this commonwealth to be now questioned." Citing : Buxton v. Uxbridge, 51 Mass. (1 Met.) 87 ; Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 515 ; Davis V. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514. ' See ; Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 69 ; Weld V. WiUiams, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 486 ; Nightingale v. BurreU, 33 Mass. (15 Pick.) 104, 116 ; Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. 161, 167, 175 ; Pollock V. Speidel, 17 Oliio St. Chap. XIII. § 461.] GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAILS. 403 estates may be again divided, as to the sex of the heirs who are to take, into estates-tail male and estates-tail female. Thus the estate may be limited to the male heirs of the donee, in which case it is known as an estate- tail male ; or it may be limited to the female issue of the donee, in which case it is called an estate-tail female. Estates-tail male and tail female may be either general or special estates-tail. Sec. 461. Same — General and special estates-tail. — Every estate-tail is either general or special.^ "Where the estate in lands is given to a man and to the heirs of his body, generally, the devisee takes an estate in tail general ; '^ but where the gift is restricted to certain heirs of the donee's body, exclusive of others, it becomes an estate- tail special.^ Thus where a devise of lands is to one " to hold to him and to the heirs of his body forever," the devisee takes an estate in tail general ; * but if the gift ' Butler V. Huestis, 68 lU. 594 ; s.o. 18 Am. Rep. 589, 593 ; 2 Bl. Com. 113. " Riggs V. SaUy, 15Me. (3Shep.)408; Hoxton V. Archer, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 199 ; Den V. Hugg, 5 N. J. L. (3 South.) 427 ; Den V. Laquear, 4 N. J. L. (1 South.) 301 ; Den V. Emans, 3 N. J. L. (2 Penn.) 967. ' 3 BL Com. 113, 114. *See: Riggs v. SaUy, 16 Me. (3 Shep.) 408 ; Hoxton V. Archer, 3 Gill & J. (Md.) 199. SewaU V. Howard, 1 Har. & McH. (Md.) 45 ; Keys V. Goldsborough, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 369 ; Den V. Laquear, 4 N. J. L. (1 South.) 301 ; Den V. Emans, 3 N. J. L. (2 Penn.) 967. A devise "to my daughter and her heirs forever, and not to be disposed of to none from them, but my said daughter and her heirs forever," entails the land upon such daughter and her heirs, in fee-tail general. SewaU V. Howard, 1 Har. & McH. (Md.) 45. The words in a devise, " My will is, that my daughter M. shall be partaker of all my estate, both real and personal, pro- vided she leaving an issue, male or female ; " and after- wards, in the same wiU, " that the issue, male or female, from the body of my daughter M. shall be next partaker," create an estate-tail general in M. ; and her issue do not take as de- visees imder the will. Den V. Emans, 3 N. J. L. (3 Penn.) ' 967. The words, " I give and bequeath, etc., to my daughter E., during her Ufetime, and then to the heirs of her body, and so to her heirs' heirs forever ;" and " if aU the heirs of either or both my daughters should die and leave no issue, as aforesaid, then what should or was to be theirs, to be equally divided among my three sons, J. , S. , and J., or to their heirs forever," creates an estate-tail general in E., with remainder in fee to J., S. , and J. , as tenants in com- mon. Den V. Laquear, 4 N. J. L. (1 South.) 301. A devise was as follows : "I give and bequeath the whole of my estate, both real and per- 40J: SPECIAL TAILS VALID WHERE. [Book III. be to a person and the heirs of his body on his present spouse, who is designated by name, the devisee takes an estate in tail special, the issue of the donee and any other spouse being excluded.^ Sec. 462. Same— Same— Limitation in tail special valid where.— In order that a limitation in special tail shall be good, it must be to the issue to be begotten upon the body of some spouse named, who must be either the donee's present spouse ,or a person who by possibility may become his spouse. Thus, if the person designated as such spouse be so near of kin to the donee as to render their union in marriage unlawful, the estate would be in the donee for life only.^ Probability that such a union will take place between the parties named is not necessary to the validity of the gift ; nor is the validity of such a limitation affected by the impossibility that, if married, the parties should have issue to inherit. Thus where the two parties named are at the time married to two other persons, the gift will be valid, because it is possible that such other parties may both die and the donee and the person designated in the will may afterwards intermarry. And where the parties are married at the time of the gift, such gift will not be invalid by reason of the fact that because of old age or physical defect the birth of issue is impossible. Such an estate will not become an estate-tail after possibility of issue extinct so long as the parties named are living.^ Sec. 463. Same— Estates-tail male and female.— Where lands are given to a person and the heirs male of his or her body, this is called an estate in tail male general, to sonal, unto my five daughters, direct descents, the devisees to them and their heirs forever, each took estates-tail general, to be equally divided amongst with cross remainders in fee, them ; and it is my will, that, under the limitation over to if either of the said children the survivors. die without issue lawfully be- Hoxton v. Archer, 3 Gill & J. gotten of their body, in that (Md.) 199. case the part of the said child ' 3 Bl. Com. 113, 114. be equally divided among my See : McKenzie v. Jones, 39 Miss. surviving daughters." Held, 330. in Maryland, that, this will « 2 Prest. Est. 417. being made before the act to ^ 3 Prest. Est. 395. Chap. XIII. § 464.] FEANK-MARRIAGE— ESTATE IN. 405 which the heirs female are not inheritable ; ^ and where lands are given to a person and the heirs female of his or her body, this constitutes a tail fernale general, to which the heirs male are not inheritable.^ Sec. 464. Same — Estate in frank-marriage.— It was for- merly the practice in England for a person to give lands to another, as a marriage portion with his daughter or cousin, to hold to the husband and wife with the under- standing and upon the condition that it was to descend to the issue of such marriage. Such an estate was called a frank-marriage.^ Courts construe gifts in frank-mar- riage in the same manner as donations to persons and the heirs of their bodies, by which means they came to be considered to be conditional fees,* and the condition being considered as having been performed on the birth ' Dart V. Dart, 7 Conn. 250 ; Atlin V. Bunoe, 1 Root (Conn.) 96 ; Manwaring v. Tabor, 1 Boot (Conn.) 79 ; Hurlburt v. Emerson, 16 Mass. 341 ■ Den V. Hugg, 5 N. J. L. (2 South.) 427; Den V. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. (3 Penn.) 819, 880 : WUcox V. Heywood, 13 R. 1. 196 ; Jillson«. Wilcox, 7 R. I. 515 ; DeWindt v. DeWindt, L. R. 1 H. L. 87. 2 Some English authors question whether an estate-tail female is valid. ChalUs says : " No motive can be imagined which would be likely to induce any one to limit a fee-tail to heirs female, though nothing is more common than the Umitation of a fee-tail to heirs male. Tlie former kind of limitation was probably suggested by the latter ; and it probably exists only in the logical imagination of text writers. But there is no reasonable doubt as to its legal validity ; which, indeed, is expressly recognized by the Conveyancing Act of 1881, § 51." Challis' Real Prop. 230. Same — Hargrave, in note on Coke Littleton (1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 25a, note 1), makes mention of an attempt to prove in argument that limitations in tail female are invalid. In Goodtitle v. Burtenshaw, Fearne Cont. Rem., App. No. 1, a Hmitation occurred to the heirs female, but as purchasers. From some remarks made by Lord Coke (3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 377a), it may perhaps be inferred that limitations in tail female, in remainder upon a limitation in tail male, may actually have occurred as the work of short-sighted convey- ancers, who mistook their effect. Lord Coke points out the danger of such limitations, and shows that the proper limitation to effect the probable intention is a limitation in tail general, in remainder upon a limitation in tail male. See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 25b. ' GlanvUIe says : " Liberum dicitur maritagiura quando aliquis liber homo aliquam partem terrse suae dat, cum aliqua muliere, alicuiin maritagium." Glanv., lib. 7, c. 18. Not given with man. — Lands, it seems, could not be given in frank-marriage with a man that was cousin to the donor, but always with a woman. See : Finch, b. 2, c. 3, 29a. "See: Ante, chapter X., "Condi- tional Fees." 406 ESTATES-TAIL AFTER POSSIBILITY. [BOOK III. of issue, the estate thereafter became alienable.^ This constniction, being manifestly contrary to the evident intention of the person creating such estate, was limited by the statute De Donis,^ which, after reciting the case of a gift in frank-marriage, comprises it in the remedial part of the law, by which means gifts of this kind become estates in tail special, and the donees were re- strained from alienating them ; on failure of ■ issue the land reverted to the donor or his heirs. ^ Sec. 465. Same— Fees-tail with conditional limitations.— Where estates are given determinably to a person and the heirs of his body as long as a tree shall- stand, or until the donor or a specified person return froni Eome, or do a prescribed act, the estate conveyed is a determinable fee,* defeasible by the happening of such contingency. In such a case the same rule applies as where a similar limitation is annexed to a fee-simple estate, determ.inable upon condition.^ Sec. 466. Same— Estates-tail after possibility.— Where an estate has been given to two donees in special tail, the death of one without issue leaves the other tenant in tail with an estate of a peculiar character, which has been de- nominated an estate-tail after possibility of issue extinct. The tenant holding such an estate is known as a tenant in tail after possibility ; ^ a,nd where the estate in tail is an estate in remainder, which does not become an estate in possession until after such death, the survivor is never- theless tenant in tail after possibility.'' Such tenant is not liable in an action for waste by a revisioner, but may be restrained by injunction for willful and malicious waste. This estate can only happen where the limitation is to the donee and his heirs begotten upon the body of a specified person, and such person has since died. If the hmitation be to the heirs of one's body generally, 11 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 71, " Determinable Fees.'' § 18. = See : 2 Prest. Est. 363, 446. * See : Ante, § 456. « Litt., §§ 33, 33. ' 1 Inst. 31a ; 3 Id. 882, 833 ; See ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 37b, 3 Prest. Est. 378. 28b. Turrill v. Northrop, 51 Conn. 38 ; ^J^} ' „ . „ WiUiams v. McCall, 13 Conn. 328^ Wall V. Maguire, 24 Pa. St. 249 ; Dart v. Dart, 7 Conn. 250 ; Hansell v. Hubbell, 24 Pa. St. Hamilton v. Hempstead. 3 Dav 344 ; (Conn.) 362 ; Chap. XIII. § 474.] DYING WITHOUT ISSUE. 415 plication upon the words " dying without issue," whether the first devise was for life or in fee, without additional Waples V. Harman, 1 Hair. (Del.) 323 • Watts' V. Clardy, 3 Fla, 369 ; Haddock v. Perham, 70 Ga. 573 ; Lee V. McElvy, 33 Ga. 129 ; HoUifleld v. SteU, 17 Ga. 280 ; Wiley V. Smith, 3 Ga. (3 KeUy) 551 ; Deboe v. Lowen, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 616; Riggs V. SaUy, 15 Me. (3 Shep.) 408; Chew V. Chew, 1 Md. 163 ; Hatton V. Weems, 13 Gill & J. (Md.) 83 ; Pratt V. Flamer, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 10 ; Shanks v. Blackiston, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 481 ; Pottenger v. Stewart, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 347 ; Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. &. J. (ka.) 69 ; Brown v. Anderson, 3 Har. & McH. (Md.) 100; Mockbee ■;;. Clagett, 3 Har. & McH. (Md.) 1, 88 ; Chew V. Weems, 1 Har. & McH. (Md.) 463 ; Hayward v. Howe, 78 Mass. (13 Gray) 49 ; s.c. 71 Am. Dec. 734; HaU V. Priest, 73 Mass. (6 Gray) 18; Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass. (13 Cush.) 383 ; Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (13 Cush.) 118; Malcolm u Malcohn, 57 Mass. (3 Cush.) 473 ; Canedy v. Haskins, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 389 ; s.c. 46 Am. Deo. 739 ; Terry v. Briggs, 53 Mass. (13 Met.) 17 ; Cuffee V. Milk. 51 Mass. (10 Met.) 366; Nightingale v. Burrell, 33 Mass. (15 Pick.) 104 ; Hurlburt v. Emerson, 16 Mass. 341; Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. 161, 175 ; Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass, 3, 34 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 66 ; Idev. Ide, 5 Mass. 500 ; Williams v. Hichbom, 4 Mass. 189; Executors of Condict v. King, 13 N. J. Eq. (3 Beas.)375j Chetwood v. Winston, 40 N. J. L. (11 Vr.) 337 ; Den ex d. Somers v. Peirson, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 181 ; Den ex d. Ewan v. Cox, 9 N. J. L. (4 Halst.) 10 ; Den ?;.Hugg, 5 N. J. L. (3 South.) 427; Den ex d. Wilson v. Small, 20 N. J. L. (lSpenc.>151; Den V. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. (3 Penn.) 819, 880 ; Den V. Moore, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 386; Den ex d. Hinohman v. Clark, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 446 ; Lott V. Wykoff, 3 N. Y. 355, affirming s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 565; Ebbets V. Quick, 66 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 184 ; Jackson v. Billinger, 18 John. (N. Y.) 368 ; Burnet v. Denniston, 5 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 35 ; Roosevelt v. Thurman, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 230 ; Ross V. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.) L. 376; Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks. (N. C.) 347 ; Gibson v. Maulton, 3 Disn. (Ohio) 158; Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Pa. St. 335 ; Hope V. Rusha, 88 Pa. St. 137 ; Moody V. Snell, 81 Pa. St. 359 ; Seeley v. Seeley, 44 Pa. St. 434 ; Curtis V. Longstreth, 44 Pa. St. 397 • Walker v. Dunshee, 38 Pa. St. 430; Wynn v. Story, 38 Pa. St. 166 ; Kay V. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31 ; s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 399 ; Doyle V. MuUady, 33 Pa. St. 364: Rancel v. Creswell, 80 Pa. St. 158; WaU V. Maguire, 24 Pa. St. 248 ; HanseU v. Hubbell, 24 Pa. St. 244 ; Willis'v. Bucher, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 455; Braden v. Cannon, 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 60 ; Shoof stall V. Powell, 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 19 ; Caskey v. Brewer, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 441 ; 416 LIMITATION WITH POWER. [BOOK III. words to control the construction. ^ A limitation in a will to one for life, with power of appointment in favor Amelong v. Dorneyer, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 323 ; Gause v. Wiley, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 509 : Shestz's Will, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 487, n.; Clark V. Baker, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 470; Duer V. Boyd, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 203; Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts (Pa.) 447 ; Heffner v. Knapp, 6 Watts (Pa.) 18; Shoemaker v. Huffnagle, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 437 ; Sharp V. Thompson, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 139 ; Haines v. Witmer, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 400; Roe V. Davis, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 332 ; Wilcox V. Heywood, 12 R. I. 196; Brownell v. Brownell, 10 R. I. 509; Jillson V. Wilcox, 7 R. I. 515 ; Arnold v. Brown, 7 R. I. 188 ; Manchester ■;;. Durfee, 5 R. 1.549 ; Whitworth v. Stuckey, 1 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 404 ; Tate V. Tally, 3 Call (Va.) 354 ; HiU V. Barrow, 3 Call (Va.) 342 ; Tinsley v. Jones, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 289; Sale V. Crutohfield, 8 Bush (Ky.) 636, 648 ; Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 3-34; Ide V. Ide, 5 Mass. 500 ; Wynn v. Story, 88 Pa. St. 166. Dying without issue over — ^Pennsyl- vania rule. — In the case of Wynn v. Story, 38 Pa. St. 166, where a testator devised certain real estate to one, his heirs and assigns, forever, if he should die leaving lawful issue, but if lie should die without such issue, for life only, and then over, as provided in the will, it was held that the words of the devise imported an in- definite failure of issue, and that the devisee took an estate- tail. Same — Massacliusetts rule. . — The Supremo Judicial Court of Massachusetts say, in the case Callia V. Kemp, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 78 • Nowiin V. Winfree, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 346; Eldridge v. Fisher, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 559 ; Doe V. Craiger, 8 Leigh (Va.) 449 ; Thomason v. Andersons, 4 Leigh (Va.) 118 ; Bramble v. BiUups, 4 Leigh (Va.) 90; Jiggetts V. Davis, 1 Leigh (Va.) 368; Ball V. Payne, 6 Rand. (Va.) 73 ; Broaddus v. Turner, 5 Rand. (Va.) 308 ; Bells V. Gillespie, 5 Rand. (Va.) 273; Goodricli v. Harding, 3 Rand. (Va.) 280 ; Kendall v. Eyre, 1 Rand. (Va.) 288; Tidbali v. Lupton, 1 Rand. (Va.) 194; WUUamson v. Daniel, 25 U. S. (13 Wheat.) 568 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 731 • James' Claim, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 47 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 31 ; Murdock v. Shackelford's Heirs, 1 Brook. C. C. 131 ; Osborne v. Shrieve, 3 Mas. C. C. 391; of Ide V. Ide, 5 Mass. 500, that a devise to one in fee-simple, with a devise over if he die "without issue, or without leaving issue," gives him an estate-tail, with a remainder over, expectant on its deter- mination, the words meaning an indefinite failure of issue after the death of tlie first taker. Same — New Jersey rule. — The Su- preme Court of New Jersey say in Chetwood v. Winston, 40 N. J. L. (11 Vr.) 337, that a devise of a fee, followed by a limitation that if the devisee shall die, leaving no lawful issue, the lands shall be sold and tlie money divided between the testator's children, except- ing one of them, creates an estate-tail at common law. Chap. Xin. § 475.] REVERSION ON INDEFINITE FAILURE. 417 of the issue of his body, and in default of such appoint- ment to such issue ; and if he should die leaving no such issue of his body, then over, creates an estate-tail in the first taker. ^ Sec. 475. Same— Same— Same— Effect of reversion on in- definite failure.— A provision for a reversion on an indefi- nite failure of issue has the same effect as a remainder in fee or tail limited thereon.^ The expressions " die with- IdUibridge v. Adie, 1 Mas. C. C. 234; Parkman v. Bowdoin, 1 Sum. C. C 359 ■ Wright V. Scott, 4 "Wash. C. C. 16; Willis V. Bucher, 3 Wash. C. C. 369; Biddulph V. Lees, 1 El. & B. &E. 389; DeWindt v. DeWindt, L. R. 1 H. T or* . Biss V. Smith, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 541; Good V. Good, 7 El. & Bl. 295 ; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 394 ; 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 213 ; Butt V. Thomas, 86 Eng. L. & Eq. 571 ; VoUer V. Carter, 4 El. & Bl. 173 ; s.c. 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 267 ; 82 Eng. C. L. 172. A devise to one when he shall arrive at age of twenty-one years, and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten, and in case he should die without issue, then over in fee, is a gift in fee-tail, and not an executory devise. Williams v. Hichbom, 4 Mass. 189. Fee conditional — Heirs not take as purchasers. — Land was devised to a son of the testator, " dur- ing his natural Ufe, and, at his death, to the lawful issue of his body ; but if he should die with- out leaving issue of his body living at the time of his death," then over. Held, that the son took an estate-tail, or fee con- ditional, and that his issue could not take as purchasers. Whitworth v. Stuckey, 1 Rich. (S. C.) Ch. 404-. To survivor and over. — By wUl, dated 1778, a testator devised land to his two sons to be 27 equally divided between them, to them and their heirs for- ever ; but in case either of them should die without issue lawfully begotten, then to the survivor ; and in case both should die without lawful issue, then to be sold and given to his daughters, the court held that the sons took an estate-tail, which, by tlie Virginia statute of 1776, was converted into a fee-simple. Broaddus v. Turner, 5 Rand. (Va.) 308. A will giving the widow certain property for life or widow- hood, and should she marry again, the same to be equally divided between her and his children, and should she marry again and die leaving no child by her second husband, then her part to go to testator's chil- dren, cannot be construed as conveying an estate-tail. Clements v. Glass, 23 Ga. 395. ' Kay V. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31 ; s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 399. « Hayward v. Howe, 78 Mass. (12 Gray) 49 ; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 734. See; Whitoomb v. Taylor, 123 Mass. 243, 249 ; Wheatland v. Dodge, 51 Mass. (10 Met.) 502 ; Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) 138. An estate-tail will pass if the lan- guage in which the devise is made implies an intention on the part of the testator that the issue of the first taker shall have the estate after their father, as heir of his body, and that the devise over shall not take effect until the indefinite failure of such issue. 418 CONSTRUCTION— RULE OF. [BOOK IH. out issue " or " having no issue " or "die without leav- ing issue," and the like, in the absence of any qualifying words showing a contrary intent, will always be held to refer to the indefinite failure of issue. ^ An important and controlling element in determining whether a defi- nite or indefinite failure of issue is intended by the testa- tor, is the nature of the estate limited in remainder, a devise over for life necessarily implying that the devise in remainder may outlive the first estate,^ because it is not likely in such case that the testator was contem- plating an indefinite failure of issue, as that might, and most probably would, not happen until many years after the death of the object of the ulterior limitation.^ While it is true that the character of the estate limited is an important element in determining the intention of the testator, yet it is not all-controlling, if the limitation of the life estate in remainder does not of itself convert what would otherwise be construed an indefinite into a definite failure of issue.* Sec. 4:Y6. Same— -Saiiie— Same— Rule of construction.— In construing such devises the manifest intention of the testator must govern ; and where it is apparent that the Whitcomb v. Taylor, 122 Mass. 353; s.c. 2 Curt. C. C. 136. 249. 'Hope u Rusha, 88Pa. St. 127 ; ■ Riggs V. SaUy, 15 Me. 408 ; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 485 ; Newton v. Griffith, 1 Har. & G. s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565 ; (Md.) Ill ; Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts Brightman v. Brightman, 100 (Pa.) 450. Mass. 238 ; See : Pells v. Brown, Cro. Jac. Allen i\ Trustees of Ashley School 590 ; Fund, 102 Mass. 265 ; Roe v. Jeffery, 7 T. R. 589. Hall V. Priest, 72 Mass. (6 Gray) ' Eichelberger v. Branitz, 9 "Watts 18 ; (Pa.) 450. Weld V. Williams, 54 Mass. (13 See : French v. Caddell, 3 Bro. P. Met.) 486 ; C. 257 ; Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Wellington v. Wellington, 4 Met.) 134 ; Burr. 2165 ; Nightingale v. Burrell, 32 Mass. Fearne on Rem. 450, note 6. (15 Pick.) 104 ; * Watkins v. Sears, 3 GiU (Md„) Executors of Condict v. King, 13 492. N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 375 ; The simple addition of " luunarried " Waplesv. Harmon, 16 N. J. L. to the qualification "dying (1 Harr.) 223 ; without issue " wiU not turn Kay V. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31 ; s.c. an indefinite into a definite 78 Am. Deo. 399 ; failure of issue. Stonev. McMulUn(Pa.),10W. N. Matlaok ^•. Roberts, 54 Pa. St. C. 541 ; 148 ; Abbott V. The Essex Co., 59 U.S. Vaughan v. Dickes, 20 Pa. St. (18 How.) 303 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 509. Chap. XIII. § 477.] CONSTRUCTION— INTENTION. 419 intention of the testator was that the issue shall take by- inheritance from the first taker, and that there shall be an estate in fee-simple or in fee-tail in remainder on an indefinite failure of issue, the devise will be construed aS creating an estate-tail. ^ In Kentucky, however, a devise in fee followed by a devise over, in case the first taker shall die without lawful issue, creates a defeasible fee, and not an estate- tail. ^ Sec. 47Y. Same— Same— Same— intention of testator.— In the creation of estates-tail, as in the creation of estates in fee-simple, by devise, a much more liberal practice existed at common law than in the creation of the same estates by deed.^ The general rule of construction of devises creating either an estate in fee-simple or an estate- tail, is that the intention of the testator shall prevail where such intention can be carried out without a viola- tion of any of the well-known rules of law.* This rule has been said by Chief Justice Marshall to be " the polar star to guide us in the construction " of such instru- ments.^ While the technical ® words for the creation of an estate ■ tail by will are the same as those that are required to create the same estate by deed, yet, because of the prob- able want of technical knowledge on the part of the testator, as well as the possible lack of time for delib- eration and the attention paid by the courts to the in- tention of the testator, these technical words are not essential ; and any expression in the will under consider- ' Pott's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 168. « Sale V. Crutchfield, 8 Bush (Ky.) 637; Daniel v. Thomson, 14 B. Men. (Ky.) 662 ; Hart V. Thompson, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.)483. 3 See : Ante, § 345. * See : Ante, % 348. s Smiths. Bell, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 68, 75, 84 ; bk. 8L. ed. 323, 325, 338. See : Ante, § 307. • Teclinical rules. — The policy of the law is against entails, the courts will give effect to a testator's ■intent, notwithstanding tech- nical rules. Nussbaum v. Evans, 71 G-a. 753. The nature of the property be- queathed does not restrict the meaning of the technical Hollifleld V. SteU, 17 Ga. 380. Nor are such terms restrained by the distributive disposition fol- lowing the word "then," since it is only when the distributive words change the line of de- scent marked out by the words upon which they are engrafted, that the latter are taken as words of purchase. Hollifleld V. SteU, 17 Ga. 280. 420 INTENTION— WORDS SHOWING. [BOOK III. ation-whicli shows that the intention of the testator was to give an estate to a person for his life, and that such estate should be inherited by his issue, will be construed to be an estate-tail.^ Thus, where a testator devised his lands to two persons to hold to them and their lawful issue forever, share and share alike in two equal shares, with the further direction that in case either of the devisees should die without leaving issue of their bodies, then the land should go to the survivor and his lawful issue forever, and that if both devisees died without issue, then over in fee, the court said that " there was a plain intention to provide for each devisee and issue for- ever ; that is to say, as long as issue should remain, which might possibly be forever." The intent is equally plain, too, that the issue of each should take through the an- cestor by descent, and not with the ancestor by purchase, because the land is to be divided into but two parts ; whereas, if even all the children of the daughter and granddaughter were to take as purchasers with their parents, it might be necessary to divide it into many parts ; and also because there is no mode but by descent in which the estate can be secured to the issue indefinitely. The intention of giving to the parents first, and then to the issue so long as issue should remain, is an intent to give an estate-tail.^ Sec. 4:18. Same— Same— Same— Expressions which carry estate-tail.— Although the words heirs of the body are the necessary technical words to create an estate-tail, yet there are other words and phrases which have been held equivalent to the words "heirs of the body,"^ and con- ' Wright V. Scott, 4 Wash. C. C. 16. See : Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Met. « Clark V. Baker, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) (Ky.) 331 ; 470. Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (12 Gush.) See : Stone v. McMuUen (Pa.), 10 118 ; W. N. C. 541. Allen v. Henderson, 49 Pa. St. 5 Word of limitation and not of pur- 333 ; chase. — A limit in a devise to a Haldeman v. Haldeman, 40 Pa. donee and "his heirs," and St. 29. should the donee die without "Heirs" and "heirs of hody " — Not heirs of his body, the word indispensable. — It is said in Price "heirs" must be considered a v. Taylor, 28 Pa. St. 95; s.o. 70 word of limitation and not of Am. Dec. 105, 108, that the purchase. word "heirs" and "heirs of Chap. XIII. § 478.] WORDS CAREYING FEE. 421 strued to carry a fee- tail. The word "issue" in a will has been held to mean, prima facie, the same thing as " heirs of the body," and in general is to be construed as a word of limitation,^ in the absence of anything on the the body " most frequently ex- press the relation in which the second must stand to the first, in order to come within the rule. But the presence or absence of these words is not conclusive either way, for any other words, such as " next of kin," "sons," "daughters," "issue," "children," "de- scendants,'' wiU answer quite as well, if they appear to be equivalent ; and the most ap- propriate words will not answer, if used in a special and inappropriate sense. Any form of words sufficient to show that the remainder is to go to those whom the law points out as the general or lineal heirs of the first taker will be sufficient, unless it be perfectly clear that such heirs are selected on their own account, and not simply as heirs of the first taker. Jones V. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 219 See : Price v. Taylor, 38 Pa. St. 95; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 105, 108. 1 The word "issue" in a will is primarily a word of limitation. — Where a testator devised one- third of his estate to each of his three children for life, with power of appointment in favor of the issue of his or her body, in. ' default thereof to said issue, and in default of any issue to the heirs of the testator, directing the same to be held in trust by his execu- tors, who were directed to sell and invest the property in real estate, and allow the children, from their income therefrom, such money for their support and education as they may think proper, and also, on their attaining the age of twenty- five, to pay them respectively during their natural fives, in quarterly installments, the in- come of the said real estate for their respective benefit, it was held, that on the children's attaining respectively the age of twenty-five, the devise created a complete estate-tail in each, clear of the trust, which, by the act of 1855, was converted into an estate in fee- simple. Kay V. Scates, 37 Penn. St. 31 ; s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 399. " Issue" is nomen collectivum — Embraces lineal descendants. — Vice-Chancellor McCoun says, in Kingsland v. Rapelye, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 1, 6, that "'issue' is a word as exten- sive in its import as the phrase 'heirs of the body.' It em- braces lineal descendants of every generation ; and is not satisfied by applying it to those at any given period, since it equally appUes to all objects of that description at every period. It is nomen collecHvum ; and when used in a devise, by which the ancestor takes a freehold without any words to modify or restrict its meaning and appfication, it is a word of finiitation and of the same effect with ' heirs of the body.' Tills position is abundantly supported by authority. In Kingij. Melling, 1 Vent. 225, where the devise was to a son for life, and, after his decease, to the issue of his body by a second wife, and for the want of such issue, over, the ques- tion was, whether the son took an estate for life or in tail. Two of the judges of the King's Bench decided he took an estate for life, against the opinion of Chief Justice Hale, who, upon mature considera- tion, held that an estate-tail was created. Hale observes : ' It must be admitted that, if the devise were to the son and the issue of his body, he having no issue at the time, it would be an estate -tail ; for the law will carry over the word " issue" not only to his imme- diate issue, but to all that shall descend from him. It would 422 WORDS CARRYING FEE. [Book III. face of the instrument to show that the word was intended to have a less extended meaning, and to be applied only to children, or to descendants of a particular class or at a particular time.^ Where the word " heirs " is used, and be otherwise if there were no issue at the time ; ' because, as 1 apprehend, in that case the issue (meaning children) would take jointly with their parents as purchasers. 'Again,' he says, ' if a devise be made to a man, and after his death to his issue (or children) having issue at that time, they take by way of remainder.' This can be only by reading the word ' issue ' as a word of purchase, synonymous with ' children,' which he evidently does. He then proceeds to give the reasons for his opinion in the case itself and to answer the objections against his conclu- sion, one of which was that the Umitation to the son was expressly for hf e ; upon which he observes, that ' though these words do weigh the intention that way, yet they are balanced by an apparent intention that weighs as much on the other side ; wMch is that, as long as the son should have children, the land shall never go over, for there was as much reason to provide for the issue of the issue as the iirst issue.' Again he observes : ' A tenant in tail has, for many purposes, but an estate for life ; but it is by con- sequence and operation of law only that it becomes an estate- tail.' (See : King v. Melling, 2 Lev. 58, 61.) In Shaw v. Weigh, 3 Str. 798— but better reported in Fitzg. 7, and s.c. 3 Bro. P. C. tom. ed. 130, under the name of Sparrow v. Shaw, where a judgment of reversal in B. E. was itself reversed — the same doctrine wiU be found and the principle established. Roe V. Grew, 3 Wils. 323 ; s.c. Wilm. Op. 373, is likewise a strong authority upon the point. There was a devise to George Grew for life ; and from and after his decease to the issue male of his body, etc., and for the want of such issue male then over; and the question was whether George Grew took an estate-tail or for life only. The judges were unanimous that it was an estate-tail. It was admitted that the word 'issue' in a wiU is a wordi either of purchase or limita- tion, as would best effectuate the intention of the testator ; and, although it was clearly the testators intention that George Grew should have an estate for life only, yet it was also as clear that he intended his sons should take in succes- sion, under the limitation to the issue male of his body ; and as both inten- tions could not be effected since, if George Grew took only for hf e, his sons could not take in succession through their father, but would be entitled, if at all, in remainder as de- visees or purchasers, therefore, in balancing the two inten- tions, the weightiest appeared to be that they should take in succession, and so, to enable them to take, it was necessary to adjudge him to be tenant in tail. It is to be observed in this case that it was considered as making no difference that George Grew had no child at the time of making the will, and that he had died after the testator without leaving issue male." 1 Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481 ; s.c. 3 Am. Eep. 565. See : Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Met. (Ky.) 331. Narrowing the word "issue." — There is less reluctance to nar- row the prima facie meaning of the word "issue" than of the words ' ' heirs of the body," because these latter words are proper technical words of lim- itation, while "issue" is not, when used in a deed ; and ac- cordingly, in a will it is to be construed as a word of pur- chase or of limitation, as will Chap. XIII. § 478.] EXPRESSIONS CARRYING FEE. 423 it is manifest from the will that "issue" is thereby meant, it will be given the same construction as the word "issue " ; ^ and when it is apparent that the word " heir " is used in the sense of issue as "male heir," or as a nomen collectivum, it will be given the same construc- tion ;2 the phrase "legal heirs "or "lawful issue "^ in a will has been construed to have the same effect.* A devise to one and to his "legal offspring" forever;^ or to one and his " male heirs " ; ^ or to a devisee " and his children," where such devisee has no children at the time best effectuate the intention of the testator, gathered from tlie entire instrument. This ■was well expressed long ago by Cluef Justice Willes : ' ' Wliy does the word ' issue ' in a will signify the same as ' heirs of the body ' ? Only because it may be supposed that the tes- tator, who was ignorant of the law, intended it should have that construction. It does not, therefore, ex vi termini create an estate-tail in a will as ' heirs of the body ' do in a deed, but only when it appears to be the intent of the testator that the word should have that con- struction, or, at least, that it does not appear that the intent of the testator was otherwise. Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565. See : Lessee of Findlay v. Riddle, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 139 ; Paxson V. Lefferts, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 59; Abbott V. Jenkins, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 296 ; Clark V. Baker, 3 Serg. &R. (Pa.) 470; Hoge V. Hoge, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 144; Slater v. Dangerfleld, 15 Mees. & W. 263 ; Doe ex d. Cooper v. CoUis, 4 T. R. 294 ; s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 388; Ginger v. White, Willes, 348. Construction of "issue" when equiv- alent to " children." — It is a posi- tion not open to dispute, that if it appears, either by expression or by clear implication, that by the word "issue" the tes- tator meant "children" or issue living at a particular period, as at the death of the first taker, and not the whole line of succession which would be included under the term "heirs of the body," it must necessarily be construed to be a word of purchase ; and the rule in Shelley's Case can have no application. Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565. ' See : Jordan v. Roache, 32 Miss. (3 George) 481 ; Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass. (18 Cush.) 382 ; Holcomb V. Lake, 24 N. J. L. (4 Zab.) 686 ; Haldeman v. Haldeman, 40 Pa. St. 29 ; Wall V. Maguire, 24 Pa. St. 248 ; VoUer V. Carter, 4 El. & Bl. 173 ; s.c. 82 Eng. C. L. 172 ; 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 267. "Heirs" used as "children." — The same is true where the testator used the word "heirs" and it appears that he intended it to mean children. Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377 ; Seibert v. Wise, 70 Pa. St. 147 ; Parkman v. Bowdoin, 1 Sumn. C C 3159 « CufEee v. Milk, 51 Mass. (10 Met.) 366; Den d. Ewan v. Cox, 9 N. J. L. (4 Halst.) 10 ; Hall V. Vandegrift, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 374; Brownell v. Brownell, 10 R. I. 509. ' Kingsland v. Rapelye, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 1, 5. * Bradon v. Cannon, 24 Pa. St. 168 ; s.c. 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 60. s Allen V. Markle, 36 Pa. St. 117. " Den ex d. Crane v. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. (3 Penn.) 598. 424: FEE REDUCED BY CONTEXT. [Book III. of the making of the will ; ^ or to one " and his heirs law- fully begotten," followed by a remainder in case the devisee die without heirs ; ^ or a devise to one and his "lawful heirs from generation to generation;"^ or a devise to one "and his grandchildren,"* have all been construed to carry an estate-tail. Sec. 479. Same— Same— Same— Fee reduced by context.— In some cases where the testator has used the words " in fee-simple," in defining the estate devised, they have been made to give way to the context of the instrument, and an estate in fee-tail held to have been created by the instrument. Thus a fee is converted by implica- tion into a tail by limitation over an indefinite failure of issue,^ but if, instead, the limitation over be on default of issue at death of the first taker, no such implication arises, and the limitation over merely reduces the fee to a conditional one.® If the remainder is to persons stand- ing in the relation of general or special heirs of the ten- ant for life, the law presumes that they are to take as heirs, unless it unequivocally appears that individuals ' Nightingale ■;;. Burrell, 33 Mass. Sheetz's Will, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) (15 Pick.) 104 ; 487, note ; Clark V. Baker, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 470. 144 ; In VoUer v. Carter, 4 El. & Bl. Eichelberger v. Bamitz, 9 Watts 173 ; s.c. 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 267 ; (Pa.) 950 ; 82 Eng. C. L. 172, a life Stewart v. Kenower, 7 Watts & interest in two freehold S. (Pa.) 288 ; houses was devised to E. D., Doe ex d. Bamfield v. Wetton, 3 and "should she marry and Bos. & P. 324. have issue, then to go to her A limitation to the isstie in fee does children ; if she have no issue, not afiEect the question. then to go to F.W." The court Price v. Taylor, 28 Pa. St. 95 ; held that E. D. took an estate- s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 105, 115. taU, the word "children" See: George v. Morgan, 16 Pa. being used synonymously with St. 95 ; the word " issue." Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St. ' Pratt V. Flamer, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474 ; 10. Measure v. Gee, 5 Barn. & Ad. 3 Cause V. Wiley, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 910 ; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 495 ; 509. Lewis ex d. Ormond v. Waters, " Wheatland v. Dodge, 51 Mass. 6 East 336 ; (10 Met.) 502. Frank v. Stovin, 3 East 548 ; « See : Ante, § 474. University of Oxford v. Clifton, « Price V. Taylor, 20 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c. 1 Eden 478 ; 70 Am. Dec. 105 ; Wright v. Pearson, 1 Eden 119 ; Lessee of Willis ■;;. Bucher, 2 Goodright d. Lisle v. PuUin, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 455 ; Stra. 729 ; Alpass V. Watkins, 8 T. R. 518. Chap. XIII. § 480.] DOCTRINE OF PRICE v. TAYLOR. 425 other than persons who are to take simply as heirs are intended.^ But an estate-tail will not be reduced by a provision on the devise that if the first taker "should decease not having lawful heirs " that the estate should go over in fee-tail.^ Yet an estate-tail may be followed by limitation on a definite failure of issue, and, like an estate in fee, may depend for its continuance on the per- formance of a condition, or may be divided by the hap- pening of a contingency, but when once created it forms an estate-tail until the occurrence of the contingency or until the condition is broken upon which continuance is made to depend.^ Sec. 480. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Price v. Tay- lor.- In speaking of devises of this kind Judge Loweie says, in the case of Price v. Taylor,* that they are re- garded not according to their accidental, but according to their substantial, character, and thus erects a general principle of interpretation for all such grants, and saves them from the mere arbitrariness that would necessarily result from supposing that every grant has a purpose pecuhar to itself. There is another reason, somewhat more specific, and which appears especially in cases where the subsequent takers are described as lineal de- scendants of the prior one. In almost all such cases the sons, daughters, children, or issue that are to take are to be ascertained at the death of the first taker. If, therefore, the devise be to A for life, with remainder to his eldest son and his heirs general or special, or to his children and their heirs, and the like, then it must be treated in one of these two modes. The eldest son or the children must take either as purchasers from the devisor, or as heirs of their ancestor. But generally they are not living at the time of the devise and are left to be ascertained at the death of the ancestor, and not until " Price V. Taylor, 28 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c. Doe v. Charlton, 1 Man. & Gr. 70 Am. Dec. 105 ; 439. Lessee of Findlay v. Riddle, 3 "Tidball v. Lupton, 1 Rand. (Va.) Binn. (Pa.) 163, 164; s.c. 5 194. Am. Deo. 355 ; ' Linn v. Alexander, 59 Pa. St. 48. Jones V. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. ■• 28 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 219 : 105. 42G DEVISE IN TAIL— ENLARGEMENT. [Book III. then can the grant take effect in their favor. If, there- fore, the eldest son or the children are to take as pur- chasers, and should die before their parent, they would take nothing, and, of consequence, no children or grand- children of theirs could take under such a devise, for no one can take as heir that which his ancestor never owned. On this hypothesis, a devise over may take effect even while many of the descendants of him who was intended to be the first taker are still living ; yet it is very certain that, as a general rule, it is intended in such devises that they shall be for the benefit of all the issue of the first taker indefinitely, and shall not go to others so long as any of them survive. If we treat the descendants of the first taker as deriving title by descent from him, and not by gift from the devisor, then this purpose is effected, and without it, it could not be.^ Sec. 481. Same— Same— Same— Devise in tail not enlarged toy implication.— Like a devise in fee-simple, an express devise in tail will not be enlarged by implication.^ Thus, where an estate-tail is given by devise, a charge upon the person of the devisee in tail will not alter or change the estate given. ^ And a devise in tail by apt words will not be enlarged to a fee by a subsequent general devise in the same will to the same person of all of the testator's prop- erty ''except what is before excepted." * Where a devise in fee has been reduced to an estate-tail by implication, a charge on legacies will not increase it to a fee.^ The word "heirs " in a clause of limitation superadded to the devise, which otherwise would be considered an estate- tail, will not change the meaning of the former words so as to pass an estate in fee-simple.^ The addition of the words " and assigns " to the usual words of procreation 'See: Boggett u Frier, 11 East (Pa.) 431. 301 ; ■• In such a devise the exception will Doe ex d. Chandler v. Smith, 7 cover the former devise as well T. R. 531 ; B.C. 4 Rev. Rep. as that which has been devised 521 ; to other pei-sons. Bennett v. Tankerville, 19 Ves. Browne's Lessee v. Anderson, 2 178. Har. &McH. (Md.) 100. ^ See ; Ante, g§ 369, 370. » Heffner v. Knapper, 6 Watts (Pa.) » Den ex d. Wilson «. Small, 20 N. 118. J. L. (1 Spen.) 151 ; " Kingsland v. Rapelye, 3 Edw. Ch. DeWitt V. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. (N. Y.) 1. Chap. XIII. § 482.] ENLARGEMENT— WIGHT v. THAYER. 427 will not enlarge an estate-tail to a fee-simple.^ The use of the word "forever," after "heirs of the hody," will not enlarge a fee-tail to a fee-simple.^ It has been said that a devise to a person " and the heirs of his body law- fully begotten, and to their heirs and assigns forever," creates but an estate-tail, and does not, on the death of the devisee, become enlarged to a fee-simple, and go to the general heirs of the entail.^ Sec. 482. Same — Same — Same — Doctrine of Wight v. Thayer.— In laying down the rule as above set out in the case of Wight v. Thayer,* Chief Justice Shaw said : "An estate-tail, though created and brought into existence by deed or will, is still an estate of inheritance, and when once vested and until barred, passes, like other states of inheritance, by operation of law ; and though it is com- petent for a devisor to create as many particular estates as he will hold in succession, yet it is not competent for him to alter the rules of law which govern the descent of an estate, either in fee or in tail, which has once vested. "Were such an intention manifested, it could not be carried into effect, because contrary to the rules of law. If it was an estate-tail, then it must continue an estate- tail until barred by common recovery or otherwise, or until failure of heirs in tail. So long as there are heirs in tail capable of taking by the form of the gift, there can be no limitation over to heirs general. The very nature of an estate-tail is that it is an estate exclusively limited to a particular class of heirs ; the legal construc- tion put on it is that it divides the inheritance or general estate in fee, making a particular estate to the donee in tail and the special heirs, and leaving the estate in the donor, which he may limit over by way of remainder, ' Doe d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 15 = Den d. Ewan v. Cox, 9 N. J. L. N. J. L. (3 J. S. Gr.) 404 ; (4 Halst.) 10 ; Lessee of Wright v. Scott, 4 Grout v. Townsend, 3 Den. (N. Wash. C. C. 16. Y.) 336 ; In the latter case the court was Hall v. Vandegrift, 3 Bmn. (Pa.) influenced to a certain extent 374 ; by the fact that if the first Lessee of Wright v. Scott, 4 given estate were enlarged to a Wash. C. C. 16. fee, the will would then con- « Wight v. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1 tain a limitation of a fee upon Gray) 384. a fee. " 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 384. 428 WORDS IN FRANK-MARRIAGE. [Book III. and which without such limitation will revert to the donor, or his general heirs. ^ It has been said, upon the authority of Lord Coke,^ that when a person in the premises of a deed gives land to another, and the heirs of his body, habendum, to him and his heirs forever, he will take an estate-tail with a fee-simple expectant. In tracing this proposition, it will be found to be this : When it is manifest, by the premises, that the donor intends to give an estate-tail, and from the subsequent part of the deed it is equally manifest that he intends to give ultimately an estate in fee, it will operate as a grant of a present estate-tail with a fee-simple expectant. But expectant upon what event or contingency ? Clearly upon the determination of the particular estate, the estate-tail, by the failure of heirs in tail, which is its own proper limitation. It operates by way of gift of the particular estate in tail with a limitation over, by way of remainder, to the general heirs of the same donee in fee. Of course, such a remainder over in fee cannot take effect until the failure of the issue in tail.^ Sec. 483. Same— Words in frank-marriage suflaeient.— Words in frank-marriage, or in liberum maritagium, will by themselves suffice for the limitation of an estate in special tail to a man and his wife, or intended wife ; being for this purpose exactly equivalent to the words, " and to the heirs of their two bodies between them be- gotten." The nature of this estate is subject to certain restrictions, and the validity of the gift depends upon the existence of certain conditions.* The wife, or intended wife, must be the daughter, or other near relation of the donor. ^ The donees and their issue in tail hold of the donor and his heirs, discharged of all services except ' 3 Inst. 335. a vested remainder in fee to ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 31a. those who survive, and the ^ See : Buxton v. Uxbridge, 51 heirs of those who died before Mass. (10 Met.) 87. the son who died without issue. Bemiinder to sravivors. — A devise Lapsley v. Lapsley, 9 Pa. St. 130. among sons equally, they pay- See : Den ex d. Wilson v. Small, ing certain legacies, and if any 30 N. J. L. (1 Spen.) 151. of them die without issue, their * Litt., §§ 17, 19, 30. share shall be divided between See : YCo. Litt. (19th ed.) 31a, 31b, the surviving brothers, creates 33a, 33b, 33a, 33b, an estate-tail in the sons, with ' Dyer, 386b, pi. 46. Chap. XIII. § 483.] GIFTS IN FRANK-MARRIAGE. 429 fealty, until the fourth degree in descent from the original donee is passed ; after which event, the succeed- ing issue hold by such services as the donor owes to his lord next paramount. Gifts in frank-marriage are wholly obsolete in practice ; but where the requisite conditions are fulfilled, they are thought to be still valid at common law. CHAPTER XIV. ESTATES EST TAIL — continued. Sec. 484. Rules relating to limitations creating estates-tail. Sec. 485. Of whom an estate in tail is held. Sec. 486. What property may be entailed. Sec. 487. Same — What essential to an entailment. Sec. 488. Same — Personalty not entailable. Sec. 489. Same — Annuities not entailable. Sec. 490. Same — Copyholds — Entailment by special custom. Sec. 491. Same — Conditional fee-simple entailable. Sec. 492. Same — Freehold or chattel interest not entailable. Sec. 493. Who may hold as tenant in tail. Sec. 494. Remainder upon fee-tail. Sec. 495. Heirs of donee in tail take by descent. Sec. 496. Rule m SheUey's Case. Sec. 497. Same — ^When rule prevails. Sec. 498. Same — Where " heirs " descripfio persomajntm. Sec. 499. Same — What within the rule. Sec. 500. Same — Rule of construction and not of law. Sec. 501. Same — Applied to estates in husband and wife. Sec. 502. Incidents of an estate in tail. Sec. 503. Same — Power to commit waste. Sec. 504. Same — Right to bar estate. Sec. 505. Same — Right to title-deeds — English rule. Sec. 506. Same — Same — American rule. Sec. 507. Same — Curtesy and dower. Sec. 508. Same — Forfeiture for treason. Sec. 509. Same — Incidents of fees which do not attach — Alienation. Sec. 510. Same — Same — Duty to pay off incumbrances. Sec. 511. Same — Same — Merger. Sec. 512. Abolition and curtailment by statute. Sec. 513. Same — Effect of abolishing estates-tail. Sec. 514. Descent of estates-tail. Sec. 515. Same — Successive descents. Sec. 510. Same — Legislative change of descent. Section 484. Bxiles relating to limitatioiis creating estates- tail.— The general rules relating to limitations creating an estate of this kind are as follows : 430 Chap. XIV. § 484.] RULES AS TO CREATING TAILS. 431 1. There is no difference, in point of fact, between the words "their heirs "and the words "his heirs," or, in the case of a female, " her heirs ; " ^ but in hmitations to a single donee in special tail, the possessive pronoun adds something in clearness.^ 2. The words "the heirs male or female" will amount to a limitation to the heirs general.^ 3. The word "heirs" is the word which creates the estate, and the estate-tail is in the person, or persons, whose heirs are specified ; so that, in all limitations in special tail, if the word is not referable to one donee more than to the other, the estate-tail is in both donees jointly ; but if the word refers to one donee rather than to the other, the estate-tail is only in that one.* 4. On a gift to a single donee in special tail, the spouse assigned to the donee is not necessarily a specified indi- vidual, but may be one of a specific class ; such as any person bearing a specified name.^ 5. A limitation resembling a limitation in special tail, ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26a, et seq.; see note 1, 26b. ' The indifferent usage of the two words "his" and "their" is safely per- missible only in formal and di- rect limitations, such as those above given. In special cases, the use of the word "his " may introduce an absurdity, which may render the Umitation void. Lord Coke expressly lays it down that a limitation to A and "his" heirs, etc., is void for absurdity. If the ancestor is living at the time of the limitation, or if the donee is for any other »eason not the heir of the ancestor, this does not make the Umitation void, but alters the nature of the estate or estates, arising under it, according to the special cir- cumstances. Same — In Mandeville's Case, report- ed in 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 36b, where the specified heirs were not the heirs of the body of an ancestor at all, but were the heirs of the body of the de- ceased husband of the person named as donee, the limitation created a good estate-tail, but in remainder upon an estate for life taken by the person named as donee. Similarly, a limitation to A and the heirs of the body of his father, dur- ing the Ufe of the father, gives rise to two distinct estates, an estate for Ufe to A, followed by a contingent remainder in tail to the person who, at the death of the father, can bring him- self within the description of heir of his body. See : 3 Prest. Conv. 77-79. Therefore, if A should die in the hfetime of the father, this contingent remainder will be destroyed by the expiration, pending the contingency, of the precedent estate of free- hold. If the father should die in the lifetime of A, leaving A as the heir of his body, the re- mainder in tail will forthwith be vested in A, and his life estate wiU be destroyed by merger, whereby the estate will become itself the estate in possession. 3 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26a. * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26a. ' Page V. Hayward, 3 Salk. 570. 432 OF WHOM ESTATE HELD. [BOOK III. if made to two persons who are not married, nor capable of lawful marriage, as where they are of the same sex, or within the prohibited degrees of relationship, and who therefore cannot have an heir begotten of their two bodies, creates neither an estate in special tail nor a joint special tail, but a joint estate for life, and separate estates- tail in common in remainder ; ^ and a limitation to a man and two women, and the heirs of their bodies be- gotten, has a similar operation.^ 6. The mere fact that, at the time of limitation, lawful marriage between the two donees is, by reason of the circumstances, impossible, — as where they are both, or either of them, already married to another person, — this will not prevent the limitation from taking effect to create an estate in special tail, if there is a possibility that the donees may, at a future time, become capable of law- ful marriage.^ The mere fact that the donees are not married at the time is, if they are capable of lawful marriage, a fortiori, no obstacle. But the circumstances may be such as to create a presumption of law that the parties, though not absolutely impossible, will never marry ; as where, for example, having been married, they were subsequently divorced a vinculo matrimonii.^ Seo. 485. Of whom an estate in tail is held.— At common law, where the donor of an estate-tail granted over his reversion to a stranger, the donee of the estate in tail would hold of such stranger. But if the lands were given to A in tail, with ■ remainder in fee to a stranger, the donee of the estate-tail would hold to the chief lord in case the whole estate was regarded as conveyed away.® But where the tenant in tail has also the revision in fee in himself, because he cannot hold of himself, it being a maxim in law that nemo potest esse tenens et dominus,^ he shall hold of the superior lord. The reason for this 'Iitt.,§283. Hale's note 2. See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 183a^ ' 3 Inst. 505. 184a. See : Bingham's Case, 2 Co. 92a ; ' Litt., § 25. Metteforde's Case, Dyer 363b. See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 25b. « No one can be both lord and ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20b. tenant. * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 35b, Lord Johnson v. Hines, 61 Md. 135. Chap. XTV. §§ 486, 487.] WHAT MAY BE ENTAILED. 433 seems to have been the fact that the object of the passage of the statute De Bonis was to render estates-tail unalien- able, and if they were permitted to merge in the fee- simple, an obvious means would be afforded for destroying the estate-tail by purchasing the reversion, which would be adopted by the tenant in tail.^ Sec. 486. Wliat property may be entailed.— Under the statute De Bonis, the enactment of which created the peculiar estate known as an estate-tail, the only kind of property which is mentioned was tenementum, which signifies everything that may be holden, or proved to be of a permanent nature ; so that not only lands might be entailed under it, but also every species of incorporeal property of a real nature.^ Sec. 48T. Same— What essential to an entailment. — It seems that two things were essential to an entailment within the statute Be Bonis : (1) That the subject be land or something of a real nature ; (2) that the estate in it be an estate of inheritance. It is not necessary, however, that the thing to be entailed should issue out of lands ; if it be annexed to lands or in any wise concerns lands, or relates to them, it may be entailed.^ Thus it has been said that rents, estovers, commons, or any other property whatever, granted out of land, may be entailed.* We have already seen that where money is directed to be laid ' Wisoot's Case, 3 Co. 61a ; It is said by the Supreme Court pf Carell v. Cuddington, 1 Plowd. Pennsylvania, in Shoemaker v. 296. Huflnagle, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) See : 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th 437, that a warrant for a city ed.) 83, § 31 ; 85, § 38. lot, granted in 1683, and re- ^ Nevil's Case, 7 Co. 33 ; maining unlocated, is not cap- Child V. Baylie, Cro. Jao. 461. able of being entailed by devise 3 Nevil's Case, 7 Co. 33. in tail of a man's land and See : Steel v. Cook, 43 Mass. (1 plantation. But an estate held Met.) 381 ; hy covenant and survey may Stockton V. Martin, 3 Bay (S. C.) be entailed. 471 ; Duer v. Boyd, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) Atkinson v. Hutchinson, 3 Pr. 303. Wms. 359 ■ -^^ common law the office of ser- Wimflsii V. 'Tarlbois, 1 Plov^d. geant of the Common Pleas 53. and the ofiSoe of keeper of a 3 Bl.' Com. lir ; church could be entailed ; as 3 Inst. 334. ^^so could the office of steward, 4 3 Bl Com. 113 ; receiver, or bailiff of a manor. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a. 1 Inst. 30a. 28 ■ 434 PERSONALTY NOT ENTAILABLE. [Book IH. out in real estate, that it is to be considered and treated as real estate ; ^ from this it follows that where money has been directed to be laid out in the purchase of land it is considered in equity as land.^ In such a case, if the land to be purchased is directed to be conveyed to a person in tail, the donee will be considered in equity as tenant in-tail of the money until the purchase is actually made.^ Sec. 488. Same— Personalty not entailable.— But where inheritances are merely personal, and neither issue out of, nor relate to, land, or some certain place, they cannot be entailed within the statute De Donis ; * hence in a bequest of things of this character to a person and the heirs of his body with remainder over, the donee takes a conditional fee, and may dispose of the property as soon as he has issue born ; though a further limitation over,° or a limit- ation of an estate-tail after an estate for life, would be void, and the legacy would become absolute in the second taker. ^ Sec. 489. Same — Annuities not entailable. — An annuity, '^ I See : Ante, §103. Craig v. Leslie, 16 IT. S. (3 " Foreman v. Foreman, 7 Barb. (N. Wheat.) 563 : bk. 4 L. ed. Y.) 315 ; 460 ; Craig V. Leslie, 16 U. S. (3 Rowley v. Adams, 7 Beav. 548 ; Wheat.) 568 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 460 ; Lysaght v. Edwards, L. R. 3 Trelawney v. Booth, 3 Atk. 307 ; Chan. Div. 499 ; s.c. 17 Moak Biddulph V. Biddulph, 13 Ves. Eng. Rep. 594. 161. 3 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th ed.) 83, That agreed to 'be done regarded as § 26. done.— This is in accordance ^ See : Adams v. Cruft, 31 Mass. with the principle that the Court (14 Pick.) 16, 25 ; of Equity considers things Dorr v. Wainwright, 30 Mass. (13 directed or agreed to be done Pick.) 328 ; as having been actually per- Green v. Stephens, 1 Ves. 73. formed, where nothing has in- It was formerly Jield that slaves tervened to prevent such per- could not be entailed without formance. being annexed to the land. See : Thomas v. Wood, 1 Md. Ch. See : Blackwell v. Wilkinson, 1 296 ; Jefferson (Va.) 73. Coman v. Lakey, 80 N. Y. 345, ^ 1 Inst. 30a. 350 ; 6 Dorr v. Wainwright, 30 Mass. (13 Arnold v. GUbert, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) Pick.) 333, 338, 330. 190 ; s.c. 7N. Y. Leg. Obs. 309, ' An annuity is a yearly sum of reversing 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) money, payable to the grantee, 531 ; and charging the person only Slooum V. Slocum, 4 Edw. Ch. of the grantor. 1 Co. Litt. (N. Y.)613; (19th ed.) 144b. If granted to Hawley v. James, 5 Paige Ch. the party and his heirs, it is an (N. Y.) 318 ; incorporeal hereditament ; but Chap. XIV. § 490.] COPYHOLDS— ENTAILMENT. 435 which only charges the person of the grantor, and not his lands, although granted in fee, cannot he entailed ; ^ therefore such an estate being settled upon A and the heirs of his body, will be a conditional fee at common law, 2 and A, upon the birth of issue, might alien it and thereby bar the possibility of reverter.^ Sec 490. Same— Copyholds— Entailment by special cus- tom.— At common law a special custom to entail copy- holds might exist in a manor, and was a good custom.* The theory laid down by Lord Coke, that the statute De Donis, without a special custom, does not extend to copy- holds, and that a custom alone cannot avail to create an estate-tail, is open to the stringent criticism that, by the hypothesis, a custom to entail could not, and therefore it is only personal, unless the real estate is also charged by the terms of the grant ; in ■vrhich case it may be real es- tate, though still generally termed an annuity ; for the grantee may recover by writ of annuity, in which case the land is discharged, or he may dis- train for the. arrears, and so make it real by charging the land. 2 Bl. Comm. 40 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20a, 144b ; Doctor and Student, ch. 30 ; Litt., §219. See : Horton v. Cook, 10 Watts (Pa.) 124, 127 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 151: Aubin V. Daly. 4 Barn. & Aid. 59 ; s.c. 6 Eng. C. L. 389. ■ Aubin V. Daly, 4 Bam. & Aid. 59 ; s.c. 6 Eng. C. L. 889 ; Holdernesse v. Carmarthen, 1 Bro. C. C. 377 ; Stafford v. Buckley, 2 Ves. Sr. 171. •> Nevil's Case, 7 Co. 33, 125 ; 2 BL Com. 113. 3 1 Inst. 20a, note 5 . See : Stafford v. Buckley, 2 Ves. Sr. 170. Annuity personal estate. — In Aubin V. Daly, 4 Bam & Aid. 59 ; s.c. 6 Eng. C. L. 389, such an annu- ity was held to be a personal estate, and to pass under a will attested by two witnesses only. * Litt., §70; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 60a, 60b ; Co. Cop. Supp.,§12; Co. L. Tracts, 178 ; 6 Vin. Abr. 197. Custom to entail copyholds. — This proposition is now treated as an axiom beyond the reach of argument. It was denied ob- iter by the Chief Baron, Sir Roger Manwood, in Hey don's Case, 3 Co. 7 ; and it would seem, from the report, that the rest of the barons concurred in his opinion ; though Lord Coke, in the above-cited passage from the Supplement to his Com- plete Copyholder, says it was "agreed" that by special cus- tom lands might be entailed. (See : Co. L. Tr. 179.) In that case the question at issue was not, whether copyholds are within the statute De Donis, but whether they were within the statute of 31 Hen. VIII., c. 13, by which certain ecclesiastical leases are made void. It was undoubtedly denied by three out of four judges of the Court of Common Pleas in Eowden v. Maltster, Cro. Car. 42, that copyliolds are entailable. CSee : Co. L. Tr. pp. 44, 45.) In this case the question was not ma- terial, because the special ver- dict had expressly found, that in the particular manor of which the lands were parcel, there existed no special custom. 436 CHATTEL INTEREST NOT ENTAILABLE. [BOOK III. did not, exist before the statute, while, by the unqiies- tioned rule of the law, no such custom could spring up after the statute. Eelying upon this criticism, the Court of Exchequer in Heydon's Case^ inclined towards the conclusion that copyholds are not within the statute Be Bonis, and. that all entails of copyholds are impossible- But those who are of the opinion that copyholds are within the statute, pursuing a similar line of criticism, strongly favor the opposite conclusion, namely, that copyholds which may be held for a customary fee-simple may be entailed without showing any special custom. ^ "While these conclusions are both equally logical, yet the former is preferable ; because the reasons for holding that copy- holds are not within the statute seem to be decidedly better than those for holding that they are within the statute. But so far as practice in this country is con- cerned they are neither of any importance. Sec. 491. Same— Conditional fee-simple entailable. — In the absence of a special custom, words of limitation which would create an entail in a common law will, if applied to a customary fee, create a conditional fee-simple, analogous to a conditional fee-simple at common law,^ and will be entailable. Sec. 492. Same— Freehold or chattel interest not entail- able.— An estate-tail, being an estate of inheritance, could not exist in respect to a mere freehold estate for life, or in a chattel interest. A liinitation in terms which would, create an estate-tail, if applied to real estate, will vest the whole interest absolutely in the first taker if applied in relation to chattels, or chattel interests in lands. In such a case a limitation of chattels over to the issue of the first taker will be void, because the statute Be Bonis ■ applies to lands and tenements and not to personal prop- erty and chattel interests.* ' 3 Co. 7. Rowden v. Maltster, Cro. Car. 2 See : 1 Watkins Cop. 215. 42 ; ' Doe d. Spencer v. Clark, 5 Barn. Pullen v. Middleton, 9 Mod. 483. & Aid. 458 ; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. * 3 b1. Com. 118 ; 253 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a, n. 120. Simpson V. Simpson, 4 Bing. N. See : Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass. C. 383 ; s.c. 83 Eng. C. L. 788 : (13 Cush.) 882 ; Chap. XIV. g§ 493-495.] EEMAINDEB UPON FEE-TAIL. 43T Sec. 493. Who may hold as tenant in tail.— All natural persons capable of taking and holding estates of inherit- ance in land may be tenants in tail ; ^ and it was early determined that the sovereign or king was within the statute De Bonis, as well as common persons ; because the statute was made to remedy the error which had crept into the law, that the donee had the power of alien- ating an estate given to him, and the heirs of his body, after issue had ; and to restore the common law, in this point, to its right and just course. This it did by restor- ing to the donor the observance of his intent. And when the statute De Bonis ordained that the will of the donor should be observed, it made his will to be a law, as well against the king as against an other. ^ Sec. 494. Kemainder upon fee-tail. — Upon every gift in tail by a donor seized in foe-simple, there remains in such donor, by virtue of the statute De Bonis, a reversion expectant upon fee-tail.^ For this reason a remainder may be limited in expectancy upon a fee-tail, and the lat- ter, though of inheritance, takes effect as a particular estate.* Where such a limitation is to one and his heirs, either general or special, the remainder limited in expect- ancy would be a contingent estate so long as the parents whose heir was to take lived, because, nemo est hceres viventis, no one can be heir to the living,^ and for that reason the person to take as heir cannot be ascertained until after the parents' death. ^ Sec. 495. Heirs of donee in tail take by descent.— The heirs of the donee in tail take by descent and not by purchase, because they cannot claim the estate as coming from Dorr V. Wainwright, 30 Mass. (13 ' 1 Cruise's Eeal Prop. (4th ed.) 74, Pick.) 328, 330 ; 8 30. . „, , „ Stockton V. Martin, 2 Bay (S. C.) 2 WiUion v.Berkelej, 1 Plowd. 22* ; 471 ■ Case of a Fine, 7 Co. 32a. ChUd V. Baylie, Cro. Jac. 461 ; M Co. Litt. (19tli ed.) 22a-23b ; Britton v. Twining, 3 Meriv. 176, Litt., § 19. 183 • See : WiUion v. Berkeley, 1 Whitmore v. "Weld, 1 Vem. 326, Plowd. 323, 242. 343, n. ; * Challis on Eeal Prop. 241 . Atkinson v. Hutchinson, 3 Pr. ' See : Ante, § 441. Wms 258. ' Frogmorton v. Wharrey, 3 W. Bl. 728, 730 ; s.c. 3 Wils. 144. 438 EULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE. [Book III. their ancestor as its source, but as an estate coming through such ancestor as special heir, which cannot be intercepted by him except in the mode provided by law.^ Where the limitation is to the heirs of the body of a designated donee, whoever answers that description will take as purchasers, and the estate will then descend to the same issue and in the same order of succession as if the estate had been limited to the donee and the heirs of his body.^ Sec. 496. Rule in Shelley's Case.— There is an ancient rule of the common law,^ respecting the nature of estates, which was stated so clearly in Shelley's Case,* that the principle has ever since been designated as ' ' the rule in Shelley's Case," and which at the present time prevails in England and in several of the states of the Union, though it has been abrogated by statute in others. It is a rule of construction and not of law,^ simply providing that where an estate of freehold is limited to a person and the same instrument contains a limitation, either mediate or immediate, to his heirs, or the heirs of his body, the word ' ' heirs " is a word of limitation ; that is, the ancestor takes the whole estate comprised in this term. Thus, if the limitation be to the heirs of his body, he takes a fee- tail ; if to his heirs general, a fee-simple.^ Sec. 497. Same— When i^ule prevails.- This rule is not a means to discover the intention of the grantor or testator ; but, supposing the intention ascertained, the rule controls it, giving effect to the general and legal rather than to the more particular and prescribed intent. The party making such a limitation is supposed to have in his mind two purposes which are legally in conflict. One is to give the ancestor only a life estate ; the other to limit the ' Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) The next one is that of Perrin 118, 137 ; V. Blake, 4 Burr. 2579, and then Davis V. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514. follows the case from which « 2 Prest. Est. 360, 375. the rule takes its name. 8 The case in which the doctrine ^ 1 Co. 94. known as the rule in Shelley's ' See : Post, § 500. Case was first enunciated was * See : Shelley's Case, 1 Co. 94, 104a; decided in the reign of Edward Perrin v. Blake, 4 Burr. 2579 : II. (See : 18 Edw. U., fol. 577.) 2 Jarman WiUs, 833. Chap. XIV. § 498.] WHERE "HEIRS" DESCRIPTIVE. 439 land to his heirs collectively, and in indefinite succession. These two intents cannot stand together, without more or less of general mischief to the public welfare ; and the rule prevails simply to subordinate the particular and apparently less important design of limiting the ances- tor's interests to a life estate, to the more comprehensive, and probably the preferred, purpose of transmitting the inheritance in the manner indicated.^ Sec. 498. Same— Where " heirs " desoriptio personarum.— Where this double intent appears, the rule must prevail ; but if it can be plainly collected from the will that the testator used the word "heirs" as a descriptio person- arum, then the rule in Shelley's Case is not applicable. The word " heirs" or "heirs of the body" must be used in its technical sense, as importing a class of persons to take indefinitely in succession. Hence, if it appears that the words were not employed in this sense, but inaccu- rately, as designating particular individuals only, the rule in Shelley's Case would not be applicable ; but the persons who, at the time of the limitation, were the ancestor's heirs, apparent or presumptive, would take a vested remainder.^ Although the rule in Shelley's Case has been more 1 Leathers v. Gray, 96 N. C. 548 ; s.o. 3 8. E. Eep. 455. See : Minor Inst. 394. 2 Leathers v. Gray, 96 N. C. 548 ; S.C. 3 S. E. Eep. 455. See : Minor Inst. 395. Nortli Carolina doctrine. — In the case of Jarvis v. Wyatt, 4 Hawks. (N. C.) 337, 354, an effect was given to the words " heirs of the body " which seems not to have been followed or referred to in subsequent cases in that state. In that case Judge Hall says : " But there is another view of this case taken by my Brother Hen- derson, to which I altogether subscribe, which leads to the same result ; and that is, that the words ' heirs of the body ' give an estate in fee by pur- chase, although there is an estate for life to the parent preceding it, because heirs of the body are not heirs general ; and our law, since estates-tail are done away, recognizes none as heirs except such as can in- herit collaterally as well as lineally ; and that although, where there is an estate for life to the parent, remainder to his heirs, both estates unite in the parent under the operation of Shelley's Case, yet there can be no such union where the re- mainder is to heirs of the body. Our law knows of no such heirs. Of course, they are words of description, and those that take under them must take as purchasers. In England the case is otherwise, because heirs of the body are recognized as heirs, and can inherit as such." A different view from this was taken in the case of King v. Utley, 85 N. C. 61. no WHAT WITHIN THE RULE. [BOOK IIL strictly observed in England than in the United States, even there, when it clearly appears that the word " heirs " or "heirs of the body " was intended by the testator as descriptio personce, they are treated as words of purchase.^ Any superadded words that would change the course of indefinite succession implied by the word "heirs," in its technical sense, take the case out of the operation of the rule ; as, for instance, in England, when the gift is for life, " remainder to the heirs, female," for that is a change of the course of descent.'^ Sec. 499. Same— What within the rule.— A devise to one " for his use and benefit during his life, and then to his heirs and assigns," instead of being, as it apparently is, and as, by statute, it is declared to be in many of the states, an estate for Hfe, with remainder to the heirs of the tenant for life, it is within the rule in Shelley's Oase, and the word "heirs" is held to denote the extent and character of the estate, as a term of limitation and not of purchase.''^ ■ Theob. Wills, 340-342. " See : Leathers v. Gray, 96 N. C. 548 ; S.C. 3 S. E. Rep. 455. 5 Sicelofl V. Redman's Adm'r, 36 Ind. 351 ; Cooper V. Cooper, 6 R. I. S61. Thus a devise of lands to "my grandson, Stephen Cooper (son of Stephen), my afore-named grandson to come into posses- sion attwenty-one years of age, and to have and to hold the above-named bequest to him during his natural life ; and after his decease, I give the proceeds unto his male heirs, equally between them, and, for want of heirs male, then to go in equal shares to his daugh- ters," vests an estate-tail in Stephen, the grandson, under the rule in Shelley's Case ; the clause of the statute of wills, in relation to the creation and continuance of estates-tail, not being applicable to such a case. Cooper V. Cooper, 6 R. I. 361. Not within the rule. — But where a father by deed gave to his daughter and the heirs of her body a tract of land, and pro- vided that, " if the said daugh- ter should die and leave an heir or heirs of her body, in that case, said heirs being her chil- dren or child, is to have, oc- cupy, and possess all the prop- erty herein given to them and their heirs forever," the court held that the daughter's chil- dren take as purchasers, and that the rule in SheUey's Case does not apply. WilUams v. Beasly, 1 Winst. (N. C.) No. 1, 102. And where A, by will, devised as follows : " 2d, I give to my son, J. D. , the use of the planta- tion whereon I now live, to him, the said J. D., during his natural life, and if it should please God, should have issue born of his body lawfully be- gotten, then such issue, after the death of the said J. D., to have the aforesaid devised premises in fee-tail, but if the said J. D. should die without issue of his body lawfully be- gotten," then over to his son, T. D., in fee-simple ; the court Chap. XIV. g§ 500, 501.] A EXILE OF CONSTRUCTION. 441 Sec. 500. Same— Rule of construction and not of law.— This rule was established as a convenient and necessary rule of construction, where the intention of the testator could be effectuated by it. This is not an imperious rule of law, which must control the operation of the will, where a contrary intention appears on its face, but a rule of construction which prevails only where a contrary in- tention does not appear.^ In an early case in North Carolina, ^ it was questioned whether the rule in Shelley's Case would apply where the limitation was to A for life, with remainder to the heirs of his body and their heirs ; but this doubt seems to have been settled by the case of Kingsland v. Eapelye,^ in which a testator by his will gave to his daughter an estate for life, and upon her death he gave the estate to her "lawful issue, his, her, and their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, forever," equally to be divided among them, share and share alike ; and the court held that the daiighter took an estate-tail by the rule in Shelley's Case. Sec. 501. Same — Applied to estates in husband and wife.— In the case of the limitation of the estate to a husband and wife and their heirs in tail, if the heirs are the heirs of the body of the two donees, they take by descent within the rule in Shelley's Case ; if the heirs of only one of them, they take as remaindermen and purchasers. So that if the gift is to the husband and his heirs which he shall beget on the body of his wife, it will create in him an estate-tail, and his wife will be excluded ; but if the remainder be limited to the heirs on the body of the wife by the husband to be begotten, she will take an estate- tail, and the husband will be excluded.* But where the devise is to the husband and wife and their heirs on the body of the wife begotten, they both take an estate in held, that by this devise, the ' Chilton v. Henderson, 9 GUI (Md.) son, J. D., took only a life 432. estate, the rule in Shelley's Case 'Williams v. Beasly, 1 Winst. (N. not being applicable. C.) No. 1, 103. ChUton V. Henderson, 9 GiU (Md.) ' 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 1-6. 433. •• Denn v. Gillot, 2 T. R. 431 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 510. 442 INCIDENTS OF TAILS. [Book III. tail. In either of these events the heirs take, if at all, by descent and not by purchase. Where the estate is given to both husband and wife, they will each have a life estate, and if the one whose heirs are to take die first, such heirs will take an estate- tail in remainder after the death of the wife.^ Where the estate is given either to the husband or wife for life, with remainder to the heirs of the body of husband and wife, such heirs take as purchasers and not by descent.^ Sec. 502. incidents of an estate in tail.— At common law estates in tail, like estates in fee-simple,^ have certain incidents inseparably annexed to them, which cannot be restrained by any provision or condition what- ever.* These incidents are the power to commit waste, the right to bar the estate, the right to the possession of the title-deeds, the right of curtesy and dower, and for- feiture for treason. But there are certain incidents belonging to estates in fee which do not attach to estates in tail ; such as the right of alienation, the duty to pay incumbrances, and naerger. Sec. 503. Same— Power to commit "waste.— Among the incidents pertaining to an estate in tail one of the most important is the right and power on the part of the tenant in tail to commit every kind of waste ; ^ as by 1 2 Prest. Est. 443, 483. 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 234a. See : Derm v. Gillot, 2 T. R. 431 ; Conveyance by tenant in tiil — Grantee s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 516 ; dispmiishable. — At common law Gassage v. Taylor, Sty. 325 ; if the tenant in tail granted Frogmorton d. Robinsons. Whar- away all his estate, the grantee rey, 3 Wils. 135, 144 ; s.c. 3 Bl. was dispunishable for waste ; Rep. 738. and if the grantee granted it - The same is true where the limit- over, his grantee was also dis- ation is to the husband or to punishable. the wife and the heirs of the Anonymous, 3 Leon 131. bodies of husband and wife. 2 It has been said that a chancery Prest. Est. 441, 443. court will not, in any case what- ^ See : Ante, chapters III. and IV., ever, restrain a tenant in tail " Incidents of an Estate in Fee- from committing waste. Thus simple." Lord Talbot is reported to have * 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th ed.) 74, said that in Mr. Saville's Case, § 31. who being an infant, and ten- ^ See : Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50a ; ant in tail in possession, in a Attorney-General I!. Marlborough, very bad state of health,, and 3 Madd. 531 ; not likely to live to full age, Hales V. Petit, 1 Plowd. 359 ; Iiis guardian cut down a quan- Sacheverel v. Dale, Poph. 194 ; tity of timber just before his Jervis v. Bruton, 3 Vern. 251 ; death, and the remainderman Chap. XIV. g§ 504, 505.] RIGHT TO BAR ESTATE. 443 felling timber, pulling down houses, opening and work- ing mines, and the like.^ This power, however, must be exercised during the tenant's life,'^ for at the incidence of his death this right or power ceases. Consequently if the tenant in tail sells trees growing on the land, the vendee must cut and remove them during the life of the vendor, otherwise they will descend to the heir as parcel of the inheritance.^ Sec. 504. Same— Bight to bar estate.— Another important right possessed by the tenant in tail is a right to bar the estate, either by fine and common recovery, or by any of the statutory methods now in force in any of the states ; * and any attempt to restrain the exercise of this right on the part of the tenant has ever been held yoid.^ The right to bar an entail is so essential a part of an estate- tail that even where the tenant is out of possession through a sale of his estate, either by auction or through judicial proceedings, he still retains sufficient interest therein to enable him to bar the entail.^ Sec. 505. Same- Eight to title-deeds — English mle.— A tenant in tail, having an estate of inheritance, has a right to all title-deeds and monuments belonging to the land ; ''' and a court of chancery will compel their delivery immediately to him.^ applied for an injunction to '' Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50a. restrain him, but could not pre- ^ Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50a ; vail. Hales v. Petit, 1 Plowd. 359. Attorney -General tJ.Marlborough, * See : Post, chapter XV., " Aliena- 3 Madd. 498 ; tion and Barring Estates-tail." Lord Glenorchy v. BosvUle, Tal- = 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 379b ; bot 16. 1 Spenc. Eq. Jur. 144n. A bond to restrain a tenant in tail See : Weld v. Williams, 54 Mass. from committmg waste is void. (13 Met.) 486 ; Thus where a person settled Doyle v. MuUady, 83 Pa. St. 364 ; lands on his daughter aid the Dewitt v. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. heirs of her body, and took a (Pa.) 431. bond from her not to commit « Hall v. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) waste, and the bond was put 523 ; in suit, the court held it to be Waters t7.Margerum,60 Pa. St.39 ; an idle bond, and decreed it to Elliott v. PearsoU, 8 Watts & S. be delivered up to be canceled. (Pa.) 38 ; ,„,,.„ Jervis v. Burton, 2 Vem. 251 ; Sharp v. Petitt,4 Yeates (Pa.)413 ; 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 234a. Watts v. Cole, 2 Leigh (Va.) 653 ; ' Attorney-General v. Marlbor- ' Harrington v. Price, 3 Barn. & ough, 3 Madd. 498 ; Aid. 170 ; s.c. 23Eng. C. L. 83. Hales V. Petit, 1 Plow. 259 ; ^ Harrington v. Price, 3 Barn. & Jervis v. Bruton, 3 Vem. 251 ; Aid. 170 ; s.c. 23 Eng. C. L. 83 ; 2 Bl Com. 115, 116. Jones v. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 206 : 444: INCIDENTS— CUETESY AND DOWER. [Book III. Sec. 506. Same — Same — American rule.— In the United States, it is the general practice for the grantor to retain his own title-deeds, instead of delivering them over to the grantee ; and the grantee is not ordinarily bound, in deducing his title, to produce any original deeds to which he was not a party ; but, the practice of registration being universal, he is entitled to have read in evidence certified copies from the registry, of all such deeds of which he is not supposed to have the control.^ Sec. 507. Same— Curtesy and dower.— Among the other incidents of estates-tail is the fact that they are subject to the curtesy of the husband and the dower of the wife.^ At common law these incidents were as inseparably con- nected with the estate as the right to commit waste or to bar the entail, and could not be restrained by any con- dition.^ Sec. 608. Same— Forfeiture for treason.— At common law, estates-tail, like estates in fee-simple, were forfeit- able for treason, but in this country they are not forfeitable for any longer period than the life of the per- son attainted for the treason ; * and this would seem to be the rule in this country regarding such estates independ- ently of the provision of the constitution and statutes of the United States.^ Sec. 609. Same— Incidents of fees which do not attach— Alienation.- But there are several incidents which pertain to and go with a fee-simple which do not attach to a fee-tail. Thus the tenant in tail cannot alien the land for a longer time than his own life, and his alienee will take the estate par autre vie, voidable by the entry of Papillon V. Voice, 3 Pr. Wms. 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 334a • 471. 3 Bl. Com. 115, 116. ' See : 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th ed.) 571. ^ Partington's Case, 10 Co. 38, 39 • " Mandlebaum v. McDoneU, 39 See : Mandlebaum v. MoDonell Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Bep. 61, 39 Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Bep' 73 ; 61, 73. ^ Kennedy v. Kennedy, 39 N. J. L. " See : Ante, § 318. (5 Dutch.) 185, 188 ; ' See : Denn ex d. Hincman v. Smith's Appeal, 38 Pa. St. 9 ; Clark, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 446 • VoUer V. Carter, 4 El. & B. 178 ; Eoe d. Evans v. Davis, 1 Yeates s.c. 83 Eng. C. L. 173 ; 39 Eng. (Pa.) 333. L. & Eq. 367 ; Chap. XIV. § 510.] DUTY TO PAY INCUMBRANCES. 445 the issue in tail.^ And this is true also where the land is sold on execution for the debts of the tenant in tail.^ Neither can the tenant in tail mortgage the entailed land, in the absence of a statute enabling him to do so.^ Where the tenant in tail has attempted to alien the en- tailed land, the heir in tail is not bound by the convey- ance of his ancestor, nor is such heir bound to carry out a contract made by his ancestor for the conveyance of the entailed estate.* Sec. 510. Same— Same— Duty to pay off incumbrances.— The tenant in tail, having only a partial estate, and not the entire property, is not bound to pay off any charges or incumbrances affecting the estate ; ^ and he cannot be compelled by the heir in tail or remainderman to keep ' Waters v. Margerum, 60 Pa. St. 39; Watts V. Cole, 2 Leigh (Va.) 653 ; Litt., § 613. See : 3 Go. Litt. (19th ed.) 321a. ^ Except in those states where it is otherwise provided by statute, as in Massachusetts (Mass. Stat. 179, c. 60, § 2, p. 412), Pennsyl- vania (Pa. Act Apr. 15, 1859, § 1, P. L. 670), and perhaps other states. Estite-tail in remainder. — Such"stat- ute, it would seem, however, does not apply to the estate- tail in remainder. Thus it has been held in Massachusetts that the statute of 1791 making es- tates-tail "subject to the pay- ment of the debts to the tenant in tail, in the same manner as their real estates," does _ not make a remainder in tail liable to the debts of the remainder- man. See : Holland v. Cruft, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 163, 184. The courts say: "Section 2, which renders lands hable for the debts of tenants in tail, is supposed to extend further ; it provides that all lands, etc., held in fee-tail shall be hable to the payment of the debts of the tenant in tail, in the same manner as other real estates. Here it is 'lands held in fee- tail,' for ' the debts of the tenant in tail,' 'as other real estates.' These terms distinctly apply to an estate in possession, as the term ' held ' implies. Not a mere right as tenant in tail in remainder, but ' lands held,' and for the debts of a tenant so holding. On any other con- struction, estates might be taken to satisfy the debt of a party, who could not convey or charge the realty by his deed, and, upon the decease of the tenant to the freehold, the es- tate would be liable for the debts of the intermediate ten- ants in taU, however numerous, who had died before the death of the tenant for life ; a suppo- sition too extravagant to be en- tertained." s Todd V. Pratt, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) 465. * Partridge v. Dorsey's Lessee, 8 Har. & J. (Md.) 302 ; Jones V. Jones, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 281. A formal entry by the heir in tail is not required to void the at- tempted conveyance of the ten- ant in tail. Den V. Robinson, 5 N. J. L. (3 South.) 689. " Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 802 ; Wharton v. Wharton, 3 Vern. 3 ; Amesbury v. Brown, 6 Ves. 477 ; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. Wms. 335. 446 INCIDENTS— MEEGEE. [Book III. down the interest, except in special cases. Where a tenant in tail does pay off an incumbrance which is a charge on the fee, or keep down the interest thereon, the presumption is that such payments are made in exonera- tion of the estate ; and he cannot, by discharging such incumbrances or keeping down the interest thereon, make himself a creditor of the estate to the amount so paid, except by taking an assignment of the incumbrances.^ Sec. 511. Same— Same— Merger.— To the general rule that where a less and a greater estate unite in one person, the former is merged and lost in the latter, an estate-tail furnishes an exception, for it is not subject to the doctrine of merger ; ^ and consequently a person may have at the same time, and in his own right, both an estate-tail and an immediate reversion in fee upon failure of issue, but the estate-tail will remain intact and cannot be barred, except in the mode hereinafter indicated.^ The reason why an estate-tail does not merge with the fee where the tenant in tail acquires the reversion or remainder in fee-sim.ple, is because the estate-tail grows out of the statute De Donis, which meant to restrain the tenant in tail from passing this estate from him, which he could easily do by acquiring the reversionary interest if the merger were permitted.* Sec. 512. Abolition and curtailment by statute.— Although estates-tail were introduced into this country with our elements of the common law, yet they weie regarded as being contrary to public policy, and because of the limit- ation which they imposed upon the right of free disposal of land, they have ever been regarded with disfavor in this country.^ Most of the states have passed statutes either abolishing them altogether,^ or regulating them. ' Jones V. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 206 ; Pick.) 515 ; Kirkham v. Smith, 1 Ves. Sr. 358. Altham's Case, 8 Co. 154b. « Wiscot's Case, 3 Co. 61a ; ^ Pool v. Morris, 39 Ga. 374 ; s.c. 74 Carell v. Cuddington, 1 Plowd. Am. Dec. 68 ; 395 ; Wiscot's Case, 3 Co. 61a ; Ros V. Baldwere, 5 T. E. 104, 110 ; Eoe v. Baldwere, 5 T. R. 104, 110 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 550. s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 550, 555. 3 See : Pool v. Morris. 29 Ga. 374 ; See : Ante, § 485. s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 68 ; = See : Ante, § 459. Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20 « 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 14, 15. Chap. XIV. § 513.] ABOLITION OF TAILS. 44T In the latter case they are subject to be barred by deed and by common recovery,^ as is fully explained in the next chapter. Sec. 513. Same— EflFect of abolishing estates-tail.— The effect of the abolition and curtailment of estates-tail by statute in the various states has been to convert what would have been an estate- tail at common law into an estate in fee-simple in the first taker. ^ Thus, in Georgia, See : AUyn v. Mather, 9 Conn. 114; Posey V. Budd, 31 Md. 477 ; Watkins v. Sears, 3 GiU (Md.) 492 ; Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ; Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J. L. (18 Vr.) 372, 379 ; Den V. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (5 Halst.) 89; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 480 ; Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 4 N. Y. 9; Van Rensselaer v. Pouclier, 5 Den (N. Y.) 35 -, Omdofl V. Tnrman, 2 Leigh (Va.) 200 ; s.c. 21 Am. Deo. 608 ; Croxall V. Sherrerd, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 268 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 572. • Laidler v. Young, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 69 ; Weld V. Williams, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 486 ; Nightingale v. BurreU, 32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 104, 116 ; Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass, 161, 167, 175. Compare: PoUock v. Speidel, 17 Ohio St. 439. 2 Bibb V. Bibb, 79 Ala. 437, over- ruling Edwards v. Bibb, 54 Ala. 475 ; s.c. 43 Ala. 666 ; Ford V. Cook, 73 Ga. 215 ; Pournell v. Harris, 29 Ga. 736 ; Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377 ; Chew V. Chew, 1 Md. 163 ; Perry v. Kline, 06 Mass. (12 Cush.) 118; MoKenzie v. Jones, 39 Miss. 230 ; Jordan v. Roache, 32 Miss. (3 George) 481 : Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J. L. (10 Vr.) 373 ; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 21 N. J. L. (Zab.) 480 ; Lott V. Wykoff, 2 N. Y. 355 ; s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 565 ; Lion V. Burtiss, 30 John. (N. Y.) 483; Roosevelt v. Thurman, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 330 ; Ross V. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.) L. 376; Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks. (N. C.) 247 ; Wells V. Newbold, 1 Tayl. (N. C.) 166 ; s.c. C. & N. Conf. 875 ; Pollock V. Speidel, 27 Ohio St. 86; Gibson v. Moulton, 2 Disn. (Ohio) 158; Curtis V. . Longstreth, 44 Pa. St. 297 ; Wilcox V. Heywood, 13 R. I. 196, overruUng Lippitt v. Huston, 8 R. I. 415 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 115 ; Tinsley v. Jones, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 289; CaUis V. Kemp, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 78 ; Nowlin V. Winfree, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 846; Eldridge v. Fisher. 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 559 ; Doe V. Craiger, 8 Leigh (Va.)449 ; Thomason v. Andersons, 4 Leigh (Va.) 118 ; Bramble v. BUlups, 4 Leigh (Va.) 90; Jiggetts V. Davis, 1 Leigh (Va.) 368; Ball V. Payne, 6 Rand. (Va.) 73 ; Kendall v. Eyre, 1 Rand. (Va.) 288. In Massaclmsetts it has been held, in Hayward v. Howe, 78 Mass. (12 Gray) 49, that a devise of land to be equally divided among three persons, with a subsequent provision that, in case one of them shall die with- out lawful issue, the property given to him shall descend to the testator's heirs in fee, gives him an estate-tail, and not an estate for life, under the Re- vised Statutes, c. 59. The New Jersey statute of 1784, lim- iting the entailment to the hfe 44:8 DESCENT OF ESTATES-TAIL. [Book III. a devise which, at common law, would create an estate- tail by implication, will be construed to give a life estate in the first taker, with a remainder over in fee to his children and their descendants.^ The policy of the American law is to limit and destroy estates-tail.^ It is said by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, in the case of Jordan v. Eoache,^ that the object of the Legislature was, by converting fees-tail into fees-simple, to withdraw the restraints upon the alienation of property imposed by the system of entailments, and to render the property of the community subservient to the purposes of the community. Sec. 514. Descent of estates-tail.— At common law an estate-tail must always be traced from the donee in tail. Thus, where lands are given to A in tail they would de- scend upon his death to his eldest son,* and upon the death of such eldest son without issue to the other sons of the first donee successively, according to priority of birth ; and when all the sons are exhausted the land would go to of the first grantee in. tail, ap- plies as well to estates created by deed as to those created by will. Den ex d. James v. Dubois,16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 385, 287. Same — Estate-tail after life estate. — It is said in Doe ex d. Doremus V. Zabriskie, 15 N. J. L. (3 J. S. Gr.) 404, tliat a devise in tail, after the termination of a life estate, is valid under this stat- ute. ' Ford V. Cook, 73 Ga. 215. '•' Jordan v. Roache, 33 Miss. (3 George) 481 ; Lippitt V. Huston, 8 R. T, 415. The express object of the Mississippi statute of 1822 was to abolish estates-tail, which the Legisla- ture supposed were sanctioned by the law ; and, thus regarded, the object and effect of the pro- viso of § 27 of the statute are not to allow an estate-tail to be limited directly to one, or where there are a succession of donees, to the remainderman. Jordan v. Roache, 32 Miss. (3 George) 481. 3 32 Miss. (3 George) 481. * In England every inference is in favor of the rights of primo- geniture ; all presumptions are raised in favor of acquisitions of title to land by descent, rather than by purchase ; and the intention of the testator is assumed to be in accordance therewith. In this country, as a rule, no such partialities or presumptions can be said to ex- ist. Chilton -y. Henderson, 9 Gill (Md.) 433. See: Allyn v. Mather, 9 Conn. 133; Hamilton v. Hempsted, 8 Day (Conn.) 339 ; Wells V. Olcott, 1 Kirby (Conn.) 118 ; Borden v. Kingsbury, 3 Root (Conn.) 39 ; Allin V. Bunoe, 1 Root (Conn.) 96. In Massachusetts, however, an es- tate-tail, as at common law, descends to the eldest son, and to the eldest son of the eldest son. Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 284 ; Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. o. Chap. XIV. § 515.] SUCCESSIVE DESCENTS. 449 the first donee's daughter, if there should be but one ; but if there should be more than one, to all the daughters, taking jointly. Upon a failure of lineal heirs the estate would either go to those entitled in remainder or would revert to the donor and his heirs. If the estate created was a tail male, the issue male alone would inherit, and the same is true of an estate in tail female. ^ The common- law rule of descent for estates-tail obtained in this coun- try prior to the Eevolution.^ But shortly after the Declaration of Independence a general tendency set in throughout the states to either abolish estates-tail or restrict the time during which they should be allowed to exist. ^ Sec. 51S. Same— Successive descents.— Where the statute of descents has not changed the character of an estate-tail, it will descend, in due course of law, to the issue of the donee who answer the requisite description, however re- mote they may be in decree from the donee in tail ; and each of such of whom, in succession, willbe tenants in taU with the powers and rights which the common ancestor had in respect to the estate so long as there may by possibility be issue to answer the description in the limitation creat- ing the estate.* The course of descent in estates-tail at common law is the same as that of estates in fee-simple ; that is, to the eldest son and his eldest son, and so on, ad infinitum,^ if the ancestor has sons ; ^ if no sons, to the daughters, taking severally. The same rule applies ' Litt., §§ 21, 23, 23. * See : Ante, § 513 ; Post, § 551. See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 24a- " 3 Prest Est. 394. 25a. See : Corbin v. Healy, 3" Mass. ■' See : Pratt v. Sanger, 70 Mass. (4 (30 Pick.) 515. Gray) 84, 86 ; 'A devise to a man and the heirs of Wight V. Tliayer, 67 Mass. (1 liis. body is a limitation of an Gray) 384, 386 ; estate-tail, with remainder over Buxton V. Inhabitants of Ux- if it can take eSeot ; and if it bridge, 51 Mass. (10 Met.) 87, 91; descend from the devisee in Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (30 taU, the heirs of his body take Pick ) 515 ; in succession, the eldest son and Davis v. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514 ; his issue, the second, etc., and Sumner v. WiUiams, 8 Mass. 163, so on. 174 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 83 ; Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. Eeinh'ard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St, 488, 8. 491 . « See : Wight v. Thayer, 67 Mass. Sander's Lessee v. Momingstar, (1 Gray) 284. 1 Yeates (Pa.) 313. 29 450 DESCENT— LEGISLATIVE CHANGES. [BOOK III. in this country, where the subject is not regulated by statute.-' Sec. 516. Same— Legislative change of descent.— The right of Legislatures to alter or direct, by statute, the future course of estates-tail in existence at the time of the pas- sage of the act has been considered by our courts, and held that such a power was possessed before the adoption of the constitution.^ Since the adoption of the constitu- tion such right is unquestioned.^ Eespecting the right of the Legislature of any state to declare every fee-tail to be a fee-simple in the tenant in tail, it is said in the case of De Mill V. Lockwood,*that the Legislature by so doing would not take away any right of property from any one and invest it in another ; that they would not take any strict legal rights from any one, because the issue have no right in entailed estates which can be conveyed, but only a possibility or expectancy or capacity of inheriting. ' See : Cromwell v. Delany, 4 Har. children. & McH. (Md.) 539 ; Den ex d. Spaoliius v. Spacbius, Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 173. Gray) 384 ; ^ Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 16 N. Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20 J. L. (1 Harr.) 285. Pick.) 514 ; » gee : Pollock v. Speidel, 17 Ohio Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. St. 86 ; 3 ; De Mill v. Lookwood, 3 Blatch. Den ex d. Spachius i'. Spacbius, C. C. 56. 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 172 ; limitation on subsisting estates. — In Nichollson v. Bettle, 57 Pa. St. PoUock v. Speidel, 17 Ohio St. 384 ; 86, it is said that the Ohio act Eeinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St. 491 ; of December 17th, 1811, re- Guthrie's Appeal, 37 Pa. St. 9. stricting entailments, operated In New Jersey, before the statute to limit entailments then sub- of 1820, estates-tail general sisting as well as those subse- desoended to the eldest son, to quently created. the exclusion of all the other ^ 8 Blatch. C, C. 56. CHAPTER XV. ALIENATION AND BARRING ESTATE-TAIL. Sec. 517. Conditional fees. Sec. 518. Same — Doctrine of the common law. Sec. 519. Statute of Westminster II. — Origin and effect. Sec. 530. Same — Evils of the statute. Sec. 521. Same — Evading the statute — Origin of fines and recoveries. Sec. 523. Alienating estates-tail. Sec. 523. Same — By issue in tail. Sec. 524. Same — Meaning of statute. Sec. 525. Same — Discontinuance. Sec. 526. Same — Modes of discontinuance. Sec. 527. Same — Effects of discontinuance. Sec. 528. Same — When discontinuance not had. Sec. 529. Same — Creates base fee when. Sec. 530. Fines — Nature and kinds. Sec. 531. Same — Common-law and statutory fines. Sec. 532. Same — Fines in the United States. Sec. 533. Common recovery — Definition. Sec. 534. Same — Nature of. Sec. 535. Same— Statutoiy tenant of the praecipe. Sec. 536. Same — Same— Form of proceedings. Sec. 537. Same— Effect of . Sec. 538. Same — In the United States. Sec. 539. Same — Against estate of creator of entail. Sec. 540. Same — By writ ad quod damnum. Sec. 541. Alienation by bargain and sale— English doctrine. Sec. 543. Same — Doctrine in United States. Sec. 543. ■ Same— Statutory bar by deed. Sec. 544. Same— Formality of deed. Sec. 545. Same— Conveyances of limited interests. Sec. 546. Same— Record of deed. Sec. 547. Same— By mortgage. Sec. 548. Same— By partition. Sec. 549. Same— By sale on execution. Sec. 550. Same— By leases and releases. Sec. 551. Statutory abolition and curtailment. Sec. 553. Equitable estates-tail. 451 452 CONDITIONAL FEES— STATUTE. [Book III. Section 517. Conditional fees.— Those estates known as estates-tail under the statute De Bonis were, before the passage of the statute, known to the common law as con- ditional fees. Estates-tail were limited to particular heirs to the exclusion of others, the condition being that if the donee died, without leaving such heirs as were specified, the estate reverted to the grantor. In this manner the nobility and great landed proprietors were enabled to preserve their lands within their own families ; but the doctrine of conditional fees interfered with and tended to defeat entailment, causing an appeal to be made to Edward I. to restore the ancient law by Alfred for the preservation of entails.^ Sec. 518. Same— Doctrine of the common law.— Accord- ing to the common law, upon the birth of issue to which the estate was limited, it became absolute for three pur- poses ; 1. The donee could alienate, and thus bar his own issue and the revisioner. 2. He could forfeit the estate in fee-simple for treason. Before he could only forfeit his life estate. 3. He could charge the estate with incumbrances, he might also alien it before issue born, but in that case the effect of the alienation was only to exclude the lord, during the life of the tenant and that of his issue, if such issue were subsequently born ; while if the alienation was after the birth, its effects were to completely invest in the grantee a fee-simple estate.^ Sec. 519. statute of Westminster II.— Origin and efifect.— In this state of the law it became useful for the donee, as soon as the condition was fulfilled by the birth of issue, to alien, and afterwards to repurchase, the land. This gave him a fee-simple absolute, for all purposes. The heir was thus completely in the power of the an- cestor, and the bounty of the donor was liable to be defeated by the birth of the issue, for whom it was his ' 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 141. 18 L. ed. 572, 578 ; « See ; Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, Willion v. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 73U. S. (5WaU.)368,385; bk. 241. Chap. XV. §§520, 521.] STATUTE WESTMINSTER— EVILS. 453 object to provide. To prevent such results, and to enable the great families to transmit in perpetuity the possession of their estates to their posterity, the statute De Bonis, passed in the third year of the reign of Edward I., and known as the statute of Westminster II. , was enacted. It provided "that the will of the donor, according to the form in the deed of gift manifestly expressed, should be observed, so that they to whom a tenement was so given upon condition should not have the power of alienating the tenement so given, whereby it might not remain after their death to their issue, or to the heir of the donor, if the issue should fail." Under this statute it was held that the donee had no longer a conditional fee governed by the rules of the common law, but that the estate was inalienable, and must descend "per formam doni," or pass in reversion.^ Sec. 520. Same — Evils of the statute. — This "family law," as Sir Arthur Pigott has designated the statute, produced many serious mischiefs. Blackstone tells us ^ that, as a result of it, children grew disobedient when they could not be set aside ; farmers were ousted of their leases, made by tenant in tail ; creditors were defrauded of their debts ; innumerable latent entails were produced to deprive purchasers of the lands they had fairly bought ; treason was encouraged ; so that these estates were justly branded as the source of new contentions and mis- chiefs unknown to the common law, and almost univer- sally considered as the common grievance of the realm. ^ Eepeated efforts were made by the commons to secure the repeal of the statute De Donis,^ but they were uniformly defeated by the nobility, in whose interest the statute was passed. Sec. 621. Same— Evading the statute— Origin of fines and recoveries.- It remained in force and was administered without evasion for about two centuries, when the judges, • See : CroxaU's Lessee «. Sherrerd, (Va.) 200; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 72 U. S. (5 Wall) 268, 285 ; bk. 608. 18 L. ed. 572, 578. ^ See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19b ; 2 2 Bl Com. 216. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 116. 3 See : OmdofE v, Turman, 3 Leigh 454 ALIENATING ESTATES-TAIL. [Book IIL in the famous Taltarum's Case/ decided during the reign of Edward IV., devised a method to evade the statute by means of common recoveries.^ This action of the judges was subsequently noticed and indirectly sanctioned by various acts of Parliament, and finally became an estab- lished form of conveyances or common assurances.^ These common recoveries had the force and effect of an absolute bar, not only of all estates-tail, but also of all remainders and reversions expectant on the determina- tion of such estates.* Fines were subsequently resorted to for the same purpose. Conveyances in England by fines and recoveries are now abolished by the statute,^ and estates-tail can only be barred by a deed under the statute.® Sec. 522. Alienating estates-tail.— The statute De Donis affecting perpetuity restrains the tenant in tail from alienating his estate, in any manner whatever, for a greater interest than his own life.'^ The words of the statute by which the alienation of an estate-tail is pro- hibited, however, extend only to the original donee, and not to his issue ; ^ but this prohibition was extended by the judges to the issue of the tenant in tail in infinitum. The reason for this seems to be because the judges regarded the statute as remedial, and the omission of the heirs of the donee as merely a misprision of the clerk. ' y. B. 13 Edw. IV., 19 ; 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 368, 385; bk. a Bl. Com. 357 ; 18 L. ed. 573, 578. 3' Prest. Est. 454 ; « Church v. Edwards, 3 Bro. C. C. 1 Spear Eq. 143. 180 ; See : Eoseboom v. Van Vechten, Egerton v. Earle, etc., 1 Sim. N. 5 Den. (N. Y.) 414. S. 464 ; s.c.7 Eng. L. & Eq. 170. « 2 Bl. Com. 116. See : Roseboom v. Van Vechten, See : Ransley v. Stott, 36 Pa. St. 5 Den. (N. Y.) 414. 126; 'Littleton says that "if a tenant Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, 72 in tail grants all his estate to U. S. (5 Wall.) 268, 285 ; bk. 18 another, the grantee has no L. ed. 572. estate but for term of life of 3 DeWitt V. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. the tenant in tail, and the re- (Pa.) 431 ; version of the tail is not in the 3 Bl. Com. 357, 360 ; tenant in tail ; because he has 4 Kent Cora. (13th ed.) 13. granted all his estate, and his * MUdmay's Case, 6 Co. 40 ; right," etc. Martin v. Strachan, 5 T. R. 107, Litt., § 650. note ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 552, See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 346a. note ; 8 Nee habeant illi, quibus tene- 2 Bl. Com. 361. mentum sic fuerit datum, ' 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 74, §§ 3, 14. potestatum alienandi. See : Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, ' Reniger v. Fagossa, 1 Plowd. 13 ; Chap. XV. §§ 523, 526.] ALIENATION— DE DONIS. 455 Sec. 523. Same— By issue in tail.— It was adjudged by Beresford that "the issue in tail should not alien, no more than they to whom the land was given, and that was the intent of the makers of the act ; and it was but their negligence that it was omitted, as there it is said. In this case, by way of purchase, the land is given to the donees, and by way of limitation to the issues in tail ; and, therefore, by a benign interpretation, the purview of this extends to the issues in tail." ^ Sec, 524. Same— Meaning of statute.— While the statute De Donis restrains tenants in tail from alienating their estates for any longer period than that of their own lives, yet it has not been construed literally to mean that the grantee took an estate only for the life of the tenant in tail, which determined ipso facto by the death of such tenant in tail. The statute has been construed to mean that the grantee's estate was certain and indefeasible during the life of the tenant in tail only, upon whose death it became defeasible by his issue, or the remain- derman or the reversioner.^ It was otherwise, how- ever, where anything was granted out of an estate that was in tail, such as rent, and the like ; for such grant became absolutely void by the death of the grantor, and could never be made good.^ Sec. 525. Same— Discontinuance.— The law considering the tenant in tail as having not only possession, but also the right of possession of inheritance, restrains him from alienating them by certain modes of conveyance which takes away the entry of issue, and drives him to his action, and which is called a discontinuance. For, as Littleton says,* "seeing he had an estate of inherit- ance, the judges compared it to the case where a man was seized in right of his wife, or a bishop in right of his bishopric, or an abbot in right of his monastery." Sec. 526. Same— Modes of discontinuance.— By the com- Offle's Lessee v. Ogle, 1 T. Jones ' Walter v. Bould, 1 Bulst. 33. (Ir. Eq.)339. " Litt. , § 595 ; 1 3 Inst. 336. 2 Inst. 335. 2 Maohell v. Clarke, 3 Ld. Eaym. See : 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 336a. 778. 456 DISCONTINUANCE— EFFECTS OF [BOOK III. mon law estates-tail might be discontinued by five dif- ferent modes of conveyances ; namely, by a feoffment, fine, release, confirmation accompanied by a warranty,^ and by a recovery not duly suffered, as where there was no voucher over of tenant in tail, so as to bar the issue or remainder over. A recovery duly suffered was some- times improperly termed a discontinuance, but by reason of its peculiar operation it was an absolute conveyance by the tenant in tail.^ By the common law a tenant in tail might also alien his estate by other modes of convey- ance, which only transfers the possession, and not the right of possession. Alienation of innocent assurances of this kind did not become ipso facto void by the death of the tenant in tail, but were avoided by the entry of the issue. ^ Sec. 527. Same— Effects of discontinuance .—The effect of a discontinuance at common law was to pass a fee-simple under a new and wrongful title, and to divest the estates in remainder and reversion, taking away from the dis- continuees their right of entry and putting them on their right of action. But to work such a discontinuance the tenant in tail had to be in possession.* Sec. 528. Same— When discontinuance not had.— At com- mon law where, the reversion and remainder could not be discontinued, the tenant in tail could not discontinue ' See : Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. Hopkins v. Threlkeld, 3 Har. & & J. (Md.) 69 ; McH. (Md.) 443. Gleason v. Scott, 8 Hen. & M. ^ 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 335a, b ; (Va.)378. ' 3 Burr. 704. To effect a discontinuance there must ^ Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97b ; be a transmutation of the pos- 1 Co. Inst. 51a. session. But a bargain and sale, * See : Drivers. Hussey, 1 H. Bl. covenant to seize or release, 369 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 767 ; vpith a general warranty an- Doe v. Finch, 4 Bam. & Aid. 383 ; nexed, might produce a disoon- s.c. 34 Eng. C. L. 130 ; tinuance, when the warranty Doe v. Jones, 1 Bam. & Cr. 338, descends upon him who has a 343 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C. L. 103 ; right to the lands, but other- Ex parte Jones, 1 Cr. & Jer. 528; wise if it descends upon a 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 337b ; stranger. Litt., § 599. Stevens v. Winship, 18 Mass. (1 In England a discontinuance hap- Pick.) 318, 328 ; pening since Dec. 31, 1833, 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 329a. does not take away any right See : Mayson v. Sexton, 1 Har. of entry. & McH. (Md.) 375 ; See : 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27,§ 39. Chap. XV. §§ 529, 530.] FINES— NATURE AND KINDS. 457 the estate-tail. Thus where the reversion or remainder was in the crown, there could be no discontinuance ; for the king was regarded " as a body politic, of all others most high and worthy," out of whose person no estate of inheritance or freehold could pass or be removed, except by matter of record.^ Sec. 529. Same— Creates base fee when.— At common law, where the tenant in tail alienated the fee by any form of conveyance, other than a valid common recovery, his alienee had prima facie only an estate of inheritance, descendible to his heirs as long as the tenant in tail had issue inheritable under the entail, which was called a base or qualified fee. "Where this alienation was, by what was termed an innocent conveyance, the estate of the alienee, upon the death of the tenant in tail, could be avoided by the entry of the issue in tail ; but where the alienation was made by feoffment, without fine, or was made by fine without proclamations or recovery duly suffered, the issue were put to their action in order to avoid the fine. Where a fine was duly levied with proc- lamations by the tenant in tail, however, both the right of entry and action of the issue were taken away.^ Sec. 530. Fines— Nature and kinds.— A fine was a ficti- tious action commenced upon any kind of writ by which lands might be either demanded or charged, which was compromised by leave of the court, the claim of the plaintiff being acknowledged by the defendant, which acknowledgment was made in open court or before a judge or commissioner, and entered of record and duly enrolled. The fine barred only the issue of the person levying the fine, and for that reason created a base fee determinable upon the failure of the issue of the person levying the fine.^ According to the common classifica- tion, fines were of four kinds, to wit : (1) Sur consuance de droit come coe, que il ad de son done, usually styled simply a fine come coe ; and the word fine, when used 1 Walsingham's Case, 2 Plowd. 553, = Whiting v. Whiting, 81 Mass. (15 563 ; Gray) 179. 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 334b. ' Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 95b. 458 FINES IN THIS COUNTRY. [Book III. alone, refers to this species ; (2) a fine siir consuance de droit tantum ; (3) a fine concessit ; and (4) a fine sur done, grant et render} Of these four kinds of fines only two were distinguished by essential differences ; the second being a mutilated version of the first, and the fourth a combination of the first and third. Sec. 531. Same— Common-la-w and statutory fines. — The fourfold fines above given have reference to the indi- vidual character of the assurance. In referring to the general mode of their operation and the general force from which they derive efficacy, fines have been divided into two classes, to wit : (1) fines levied at common law, and (2) fines levied by virtue of the statute. In both these classes the importance of the assurance depended upon the degree in which it operated as a bar to claims which were not prosecuted within a specified time after the completion of the fine. By the common law the title conferred by a fine was a bar to the claim of all persons, whether parties or privies to the fine or not, who, not be- ing under disability, did not prosecute their claims within a year and a day. Sec. 532. Same— Fines in the United States.— Although fines were a distinct part of the common law, which was adopted in this country, and became a part of our law,^ they have not been much in use in any of the states, probably were never adopted, or known in practice, in most of the states of the Union. It has been denied in Moreau v. Detchemend,^ that fines ever existed in this country ; but this is not correct, for fines have been 13B1. Com., o. 21 ; 645; 1 Cruise's Fine and Rec. (3d ed.), Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 c. 3. Mass. 530, 534 ; - Boyer v. Sweet, 3 Scam. (111.) Stout v. Keyes, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 131 ; 184; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 465 ; Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa 60 ; s.c. Lindsley v. Coats, 1 Ohio 243 ; 14 N. W. Rep. 90 ; Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U. S. (3 Wagner v. Bissel, 3 Iowa 396 ; Pet.) 137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 374. Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8 So mnch of EngUsh law only as is Dana (Ky.) 114; s.c. 33 Am. adapted to our circumstances Dec. 481 ; and customs is properly recog- Commonwealth v. York, 50 Mass. nized as part of our common (9 Met.) 93 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. law. 373 ; Pennock's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 268 ; Going V. Emery, 33 Mass. (16 s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718. Pick.) 107 ; s.c. 26 Am. Dec. ^ 18 Mo. 522, 527. Chap. XV. §§ 533-535.] COMMON RECOVERY— NATURE. 459 occasionally levied in New York, for the sake of barririg claims, and continued in that state until 1833, when they were abolished by statute. ^ Fines existed also in other states. They were abolished in New Jersey in 1799,^ and in Pennsylvania they were enforced up till 183Y.^ Sec. 583. Common recovery— Definition.— A common re- covery has been said to be a conveyance on record, invented to give a tenant in tail an absolute power to dispose of his estate as if he were possessed of an estate in fee-simple.* The power to suffer a common recovery has been invariably held to be a privilege inseparably incident to an estate-tail, and one which cannot be restrained by condition, limitation, custom, recognizance, or covenant.^ Sec. 534. Same— Nature of.— A common recovery was at first a collusive action of recovery, not compromised, but prosecuted to final judgment by the demandant or recov- eror, against the tenant or recoveree. In its usual form, as an assurance by a tenant in tail, it was brought by a collusive demand against a collusive tenant, called the tenant of the prcecipe, or writ sued out for the purpose of suffering the recovery, to whom an estate of freehold had been conveyed by the person in whom the immediate free- hold in the lands was vested, in order to enable him to defend the action ; for a common recovery was obliged to conform in all essential points to the real action which it coUusively represented, and by the common law no action of recovery was well grounded unless brought against the actual tenant of the first estate of freehold in the lands sought to be recovered ; for default of which the recovery might be falsified, or set aside, upon a plea of non-tenure.® Sec. 535. Same— statutory tenant of the praecipe.- The common law which required that the tenant of the prce- ' See : McGregor v.' Comstook, 17 451. N. Y. 163 ; " Dewitt v. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. Roseboom v. Van Veohten, 5 (Pa.) 431 ; Den. (N. Y.) 414. Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, t2 ■' Elmer's Dig. 90. U. S. (5 Wall.) 268, 286 ; bk. 18 2 See : Prudon's Digest of the Laws L. ed. 573, 579 ; of Pennsylvania. Taylor v. Horde, 1 Bun-. 84. ■* Martin v. Strachan, Willes 444, ^ Booth on Real Actions, 39, 80. 46.0 PROCEEDINGS IN RECOVERY. [Book III. cipe should be the person actually seized of the first estate of freehold was found to be very inconvenient in places where it was the custom to let out lands on leases for lives at a rent ; in which case the concurrence of the lessee was necessary, in order to make a tenant to the prcecipe ; consequently an act was passed during the reign of George 11.^ which provided in effect that all com- mon recoveries suffered or to be suffered without the concurrence of the lessee should be as valid and effectual as if they had concurred, provided that the person next in remainder or reversion should convey an estate for life at least to the tenant of the prcecipe. Sec. 536. Same— Form of proceedings.— In the proceed- ings in common recovery the tenant to the prcecipe ad- mitted the claim of the demandant, but vouched to war- ranty the tenant in tail, who admitted the warranty, but vouched over somebody else, always a man of law, com- monly the crier of the court, who was styled the common vouchee. The demandant then ' 'craved leave to impart; " ^ which being granted, the demandant and common vouchee left the court together. Afterwards the demand- ant came into court without the common vouchee, and the latter, having been solemnly summoned and failing to appear, was adjudged "to have departed in contempt of the court and made default. " Thereupon the demand- ant recovered the entailed lands against the tenant of the prcecipe, who recovered lands of equal value against the tenant in tail, who recovered a similar recompense in value against the common vouchee. The recompense in value supposed to be recovered from the common vouchee had the same effect in law as actual assets to make the warranty good against the issue in tail.^ Sec. 53Y. Same— Effect of.— A recovery at common law by a tenant in tail barred as well the estate-tail as all remain- ders, the reversion expectant thereupon, and all collateral limitations connected with the estate,* and all conditions or power by which the estate- tail might have been defeated, ' 14 Geo. II., c. 20, §§ 1 & 2. « Page v. Hayward, 3 Salk. 570 ; ■' Petiit licentiam interloquerdi. Pigott on Reci'veries, 31 ■ 8 SheUey's Case, 1 Co. 94b. 3 Prest. Est. 460. Chap. XV. §§ 538, 539.] EECOVERY IN THIS COUNTRY. 461 whereby the person entitled to the benefit of the recovery- obtained as large an estate as could by possibility have been made by the settler who created the estate- tail. ^ A common recovery suffered by a tenant for life had the effect to cut off a contingent, but not a first remainder,^ and it has been said that an executory devise may be destroyed by a common recovery against the estate-tail, which enlarges his estate into a fee, and excludes all sub- sequent limitations whether they be by way of remainder or by way of springing use or executory devise.^ A common recovery, however, had no effect on an estate derived out of or upon charges, or incumbrances upon the estate-tail.* Sec. 538. Same— In United States.— The method of barring an entail by common recovery was in use in many of the states before the American Eevolution, but became obsolete with the disuse of estates-tail in this country. This form of alienation is believed to have been early known and practiced in all the states in which estates- tail formerly existed.^ The law favoring the barring of estates-tail, little regard was paid to the care with which a common recovery was conducted, if the power and intention were manifest.'' Sec. 539. Same— Against estate of creator of entail.— In this country lands have from the earliest time generally been regarded as assets for the payment of debts ; conse- quently where a descendant created an estate-tail in lands which were subsequently sold for the payment of his 1 3 Prest. Abstr. 137 ; Id. 393 ; Carter v. McMichael, 10 Serg. & 1 Prest. Conv. 2, 17 ; R- (Pa.) 439 ; 1 Prest. Est. 426. Sharp v. Petitt, 4 Yeates (Pa.) ' Doe d. Davies v. Gatacre, 5 Bing. 413. N C 609 ; B.C. 35 Eng. C. L. Never known in Ohio. — It is said in 337. PoUock V. Speidel, 17 Ohio St. ' See : Taylor v. Taylor, 68 Pa. St. 439, never to have been known 481 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565. in Ohio, into vi'hich state this * 3 Prest. Abstr. 137 ; portion of the older common- 1 Prest. Conv. 141, 142. wealth civilization had not pen- ' See : Wood v. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. etrated at the time of the aboli- 820 ; tion of common recovery. Stump V. Findlay, 2 Eawle (Pa.) <■ Eansley v. Stott, 26 Pa. St. 126. 168 ; S.C. 19 Am. Dec. 632 ; 462 WEIT AD QUOD DAMNUM. [Book III. debts, this would have the effect of extinguishing the estate- tail and the purchaser would take an estate in fee-simple. The same is true where an estate-tail was devised, charged with the payment of the testator's debts, which the devisee in tail failed to pay and the 'lands devised were afterwards sold therefor.^ Because of this fact a practice sprang up in some of the states, particularly in Pennsylvania, of barring estates-tail by an action found- ed on some real or supposed debt of the testator, and selling the entailed land by virtue of an execution levied imder the judgment secured in such action.^ \ Sec. 540. Same— By writ ad quod damnum.— In Virginia, as early as 1734, estates-tail were barred by writ of ad quod damnum. In this proceeding a writ was issued to inquire whether the land, and the entail which it was proposed to bar, were under two hundred pounds in value ; and also to ascertain whether the land in question did not adjoin other lands of the tenant in tail. If these questions were found in the affirmative, an order was made by the court, by virtue of which a particular species of conveyance was declared to vest the land in fee-simple. By virtue of this writ the issue in tail and the remainder- men and reversioners were forever barred.^ In this form of action, the same as in the ordinary common recovery, the proceedings had to be instituted by a tenant in tail in possession ; consequently when a tenant in tail bargained and sold to his own heir at law in fee, he could not afterwards sue out a writ of ad quod damnum to bar the entail, being no longer seized of an estate-tail, which was absolutely necessary to authorize him to sue out such a writ.* Sec. 541. Alienation by bargain and sale— English doc- trine.— In England a deed of bargain and sale by tenant in tail, without assets descending, did not bind the issue ' Gause v. "Wiley, 4 Serg. & R. 244. (Pa.) 509. 3 See : Carter v. Tyler, 1 Call (Va.) = Lyle V. Richards, 9 Serg. & R. 165. (Pa.) 323 ; < Gleason's Heir v. Scott, 3 Hen. & Nokes V. Smith, 1 Yeates (Pa.) M. (Va.) 278. Chap. XV. § 542.] ALIENATION BY SALE. 463 in tail.^ In the case of Gilliam v. Jacocks, it is said that if a tenant in tail bargain and sell the entailed land in fee, "it is not a discontinuance of the estate- tail, for that is a separation of the right from the estate ; for the issue in tail claims not from the tenant in tail, but per formam doni ; he is therefore a stranger to the bargainor, and as to him the bargain and sale passes only an estate for the life of the bargainor ; his estate remaining still in him, he is not put to his action to recover it, for he has not lost it ; he may enter, which is the touchstone by which it is ascertained whether an estate is lost or not, for if the tenant is disseized, and has not by a descent or otherwise lost his right of entry, he may compel the lord to avow upon him, and in all respects recognize him as one having the estate. " This right of entry, it was said, ' ' will support a contingent remainder dependent upon his estate as the precedent freehold, and as the issue in tail after the death of the bargainor may enter, it proves beyond a doubt that the estate-tail is in him and not in the bar- gainee, that is, the bargainee has no estate of any kind ; for there cannot be two persons in the same estate at the same time holding adversably." ^ Sec. 542. Same— Doctrine In United States.— In this coun- try it has been held in some of the states that a tenant in tail has the power to defeat the entailment, and can con- vey in fee-simple, although the will creating the estate in tail was made and approved before the passage of the statute giving the power.* In a case, however, where a n V. Robinson, 5 N. J. L. (3 Brogden v. Walker, 2 Har. & J. South.) 689. (Md.) 385 ; was held in Wells v. Newbold, Howard v. Moale, 3 Har. & J. 1 Tayl. (N. C.) 166, that a bar- (Md.; 249 ; gain and sale by the tenant in Gleaaon v. Scott, 3 Hen. & M. tail worked a discontinuance, (Va.) 378. and was a bar to the entry of But in Maryland, an heir or issue the issue, but this case was in tail, claiming per formam subsequently overruled by Gil- doni, is not compellable to ful- liam V. Jacocks, 4 Hawks. (N. All a contract, entered into by (5.) 310. the tenant in tail, for sale of 2 4Hawks.'(N. C.)310. the entailed lands. Nor has 3 See : Eidgely v. McLaughlin, 3 the Court of Chancery power to Har. & McH. (Md.) 330 ; decree a specified execution of Mayson's Lessee v. Sexton, 1 such a contract against the heir Har. & MoH. (Md.) 275. or issue in tail. ^ Eiggs V. Sally, 15 Me. (3 Shep.) Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har. & J. 464 STATUTORY BAR BY DEED. [Book III. tenant in tail aliened by deed of conveyance containing a covenant for himself and his heirs to warrant and defend, and secure the possession to the alienee against all law- ful claims, it was held that this conveyance did not work a discontinuance, and that the warranty was a purely personal covenant of the alienor, and not binding on the heirs, notwithstanding assets descended.-^ A deed of bargain and sale, by the heir in tail, in the lifetime of his ancestor, when he is not tenant, will not work a dis- continuance ; ^ and a bargain and sale with warranty by a feme covert, who is a tenant in tail, will not work a discontinuance of the estate.^ It has been said that a covenant to stand seized to the use of the covenantee will not work a discontinuance, even though the deed be in form one usually accompanying livery of seisin, no such livery in fact having been made.* Sec. 543. Same— Statutory bar by deed.— In many if not most of the states of the Union there are statutory provisions whereby estates-tail may be barred by deed executed with greater or less formality ; such as Del- aware,^ Maine, ^ Maryland,'' Massachusetts,^ Pennsyl- 413, provided that any tenant in tail, "being of full age, by- deed, subscribed before two or more credible witnesses, and acknowledged and recorded for a good and valuable considera- tion, bona fide to grant lands held in tail in fee-simple," was sufficient and effectual to bar all tails and to vest the absolute inheritance in fee-simple in the purchaser or grantee without any force or common recovery. "Good and valuaWe consideration" was necessary under this stat- ute where a deed of an estate- tail was made, purporting to be in consideration of a sum of money and of a lease of the land to the grantor for one year, at an apparently normal rent ; and before the expiration of the lease, declaration of trust was made by the grantee, among other things, to permit the grantor to have possession during his life, and the grantor ' Den d. Jacocks v. Gilliam, 3 Murph. (N. C.) 47. "Hopkins v. Threlkeld, 3 Har. & McH. (Md.) 448. ^ Mayson v. Sexton, 1 Har. & McH. (Md.) 375. ■' Watts V. Cole, 3 Leigh (Va.) 653. = Laws of 1874, p. 507. * The statute of 1871, c. 36, § 4, reacted the Massachusetts stat- ute of 1791, c. 61, and was both prospective and retroactive in operation and force, affecting estates-tail already in b.eing, as well as those created after the passage of the act. See : Willey v. Haley, 60 Me. 176; Riggs V. Salley, 15 Me. 408. ' By the statute of 1783, o. 23, a tenant in tail was empowered to convert his estate into a fee by conveying to another and taking back a conveyance in fee-simple. See : Laidler v. Young's Lessee, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 69. 8 The statute of 1791, c. 61, § 1, p. Chap. XV. § 544.] FORMALITY OF DEED. 405 vania,^ Ehode Island, ^ Virginia,^ and perhaps other states. These statutes docking entails take the place, for all practicable purposes, of common recovery, but have not all the privileges and properties thereof. Thus, while a common recovery cannot be set aside on account of the infancy or insanity of a person suffering it, a deed under a statute barring an entry may be avoided by proof either of the infancy or insanity of the grantor.* But a deed barring an entail destroys the remainders and reversion depending upon it,^ the same as, and is as effectual as, a common recovery. Sec. 54i. Same— Formality of deed.— It has been held in Ohio ^ that an estate-tail cannot be barred by an ordinary deed with covenants of warranty ; but this is not the prevailing doctrine. In Massachusetts it is said that a tenant in tail of an undivided half of land may bar the entail by conveying in fee, by quit-claim deed, all his right, title, interest, and estate.'^ continued in possession from the time of giving his deed ; it was held that, prima facie, the deed was given upon a valuable consideration and bona Jide,-aiid so, in these re- spects, was, prima facie, suffi- cient to bar the entailment, under a statute allowing estates- tail to be so barred. Nightingale v. Burrell, 33 Mass. (15 Hck.) 104 ; Soule V. Soule, 5 Mass. 61. Same — "love and affection" is en. "good" consideration under this act. Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 3 Mass. 447 ; s.c. 3 Am. Deo. 66. Under this statute a tenant in tail may convey by deed an un- divided part of the estate-tail. HaU V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 533 ' In 1791 (3 Smith's Laws, 388) was passed the statute at pres- ent in force in Pennsylvania providing that any tenant in tail in possession, reversion, or remainder may convey his land as in fee-simple, provided the deed states the intention of the grantor to bar the entry 30 and it be acknowledged in court. Eobbs V. Ankeny, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 128. Under tliis statute a deed exe- cuted for the express purpose of barring an estate-tail, al- though for a nominal consider- ation, and in trust, an imme- diate reconveyance being re- q^uired, is good for its special purpose. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Pa. St. 335. The- deed of an infant or lunatic under this statute will not bar an estate-tail, or in remainder or reversion, as a common re- covery would. Wood V. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. 330. 2 Rev. Stat., c. 145, § 3. See : Manchester v. Durfee, 5 R. I. 549. •'> Watts v' Cole. 3 Leigh (Va.) 653. " Wood V. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. 320. ' Greeawalt v. Greeawalt, 71 Pa. St. 483. 8 Pollock V. Speidel, 17 Ohio St. 439. ■■ Coombs V. Anderson, 138 Mass. 376, 378. Citing : Allen v. Ashley School Fund, 103 Mass. 363, 265 ; 466 ALIENATION BY MORTGAGE. [Book III. Sec. 64:5. Same— Conveyances of limited interests.— Where a limited interest is conveyed- by a tenant in tail, upon the expiration of the particular estate granted the tenant in tail again takes the estate- tail, as originally held.^ Thus a lease for seven years, made by a tenant in tail, will have the effect of passing the estate only for the term therein expressed.^ Sec. 646. Same— Becord of deed.— A deed made to bar an estate-tail w^ill be ineffectual for that purpose if not re- corded as required by the statute ; ® and a deed made to bar an estate-tail will not bar it if not recorded in the proper county, even though by a decree of the chancellor it is afterwards recorded in the proper county.* Sec. 54T. Same— By mortgage.— A tenant in tail may mortgage the lands entailed,^ and such mortgage defeats the estate-tail for a limited time ; if the money secured by the mortgage is paid the old estate is revived ; ^ but if the land mortgaged is sold for the repayment of the money loaned, the estate-tail will be barred ; and if the right of redeeming the estate is sold on execution against the tenant in tail, and a deed therefor duly executed to the purchaser by the officer making the sale, and the tenant in tail afterwards duly executes a quit-claim deed to the purchaser, the estate-tail will be barred, and an inheritance in fee-simple vested in the purchaser.' Sec. 648. Same— By partition.— Whether an estate-tail would be barred by partition is a doubtful question. This subject was discussed but not decided in an early Pennsylvania case,* and in a recent North Carolina case it is said that where no members of a class to whom a conditional limitation is limited are in esse, a proceeding Hall V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) George v. Morgan. 16 Pa. St. 95. 523 ; 1 Ridgely v. McLaughlin, 3 Har. & Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. McH. (Md.) 320. 1"5- ° Todd V. Pratt, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) ' Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J. 465. (Md.) 69. ■■■ Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J. "Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 69. (Md.) 69. ' Cufifee v. Milk, 51 Mass. (10 Met.) '^ Tlieologioal Seminary v. Wall, 44 366. Pa. St. 853 ; s Tieman v. Roland, 15 Pa. St. 429. Chap. XV. §§ 549, 550.] SALE ON EXECUTION. 46Y for partition, to which all of the parties in interest who are in esse are parties, will not give them a fee-simple.^ The statute of 31 Henry VIII., conferring upon joint tenants and tenants in common the right of partition, was limited in its operation to estates of inheritance, common manors, lands, tenements, and hereditaments ; the remedy given being analogous to that before open to parceners by the writ of partition. ^ The statute of 32 Henry VIII. extended the remedy to estates for terms of life or years, and also to estates in which some of the co- tenants held for terms of life or years, and others had estates of inheritance.^ It did not aflfect estates in remainder or contingency,* and therefore it is thought that estates at will and estates-tail were not within either of the statutes referred to, and that no writ of partition can be sued out against the tenant of such an estate. Sec. 549. Same— By sale on execution.— A sale under a judgment against a tenant in tail does not bar the estate- tail.^ Such a sale does not so divest the tenant in tail of the inheritance that he may not afterwards execute a deed, in pursuance of the statute, for the purpose of barring the estate-tail.*^ But if an estate-tail, created by a will, is sold for a debt of the testator, the purchaser becomes vested with a title discharged of the devise, and the proceeds must be substituted for the land.' Sec. 550. Same — By leases and releases. — A deed of lease and release by a tenant in tail works a discontinuance of the estate-tail.^ Thus it has been held in Maryland that a lease for seven years, made by a tenant in tail, will have the effect to pass the estate for the term therein ex- pressed.^ ' Overman v. Sims, 96 N. C. 451 ; " Elliott v. PearsoU, 8 Watts & S. B.C. 2 S. E. Rep. 373. (Pa.) 38. ' See : Allantt on Part. 57 ; ' Matlack v. Eoberts, 54 Pa. St. Freeman on Coten. & Part. (2d 148. ed.), § 439. * Orndoflf v. Turman, 3 Leigh (Va.) 3 See : Freeman on Coten. & Part. 300 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 608. (3d ed.), § 439. See : Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & ^ Bipsham's Prin. Eq., § 488. J. (Md.) 69. See : Allantt on Part. 64. * Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J. " Doyle V. MuUady, 33 Pa. St. 264. (Md.) 69. 468 ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT. [Book III. Sec. 551. statutory abolition and curtailment.— All limit- ations upon the right of free disposal of land are against the policy of our institutions ; and shortly after the Declaration of Independence there sprang up a general tendency throughout the Union to either abolish estates- tail entirely or to restrict the time in which they should be allowed to exist. Thus in Alabama estates-tail have been converted into fee-simple estates in the hands of the donee or devisee in tail ; ^ in Arkansas an estate-tail is a life estate in the first taker, with a remainder in fee- simple to the common-law heir ; ^ in California estates- tail are abolished, and a limitation in tail vests an estate in fee-simple absolute, unless there is a valid devise over, in which case it is declared valid, although after a fee, and vests on a definite failure of issue ; ^ in Colorado an estate-tail created by will or gift becomes a life estate in the first taker, with a remainder in fee-simple to the heir at common law ; * in Connecticut an estate-tail becomes an estate in fee-simple in the issue of the first taker ; ^ in Florida estates-tail are prohibited by statute ; ^ in Georgia they are abolished and a gift or devise in tail becomes a fee-simple ; '' in Illinois an estate-tail becomes a life estate in the first taker, with a remainder in fee to the heir at common law ; ^ in Indiana estates-tail are ' Alabama Bev. Stat. 1867, § 1570 ; pi. 3. Id. 1876, § 2179. ' Ga. Act 1799, 1821 ; Alabama mle. — Under the statute Code 1873, p. 391. in force in Alabama (Clay's See : Ford v. Cook, 73 Ga. 215 ; Digest, 157, § 37), which con- PourneU v. Harris. 29 Ga. 736 ; verts an estate in fee-tail into Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377. an estate in fee-simple in the Statute of another state regarding first taker, under a devise to enforced. — A devise as follows : the testator's eldest son and "I lend the use of certain his lawful male issue, and, in slaves to A for her life, and at case he should die leaving none, her decease I give them to the then to the second son and his heirs of her body," gives A a lawful male issue, the eldest son fee-tail, which by the law of took an absolute estate in fee. Virginia, where the will was Bibb V. Bibb, 79 Ala. 437, overrul- made, became an estate in fee- ing Edwards v. Bibb, 43 Ala. simple. 666 ; 8.0. 54 Ala. 475. PourneU v. Harris, 29 Ga. 786. ° Arkansas Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 373 ; A devise to daughters and their un- Id. 1888, p. 266, § 6. horn children creates an estate- = Cal. Civil Code 1872,- §§ 763, 764. taU, that is a fee under our "Colo. Gen. Laws 1877, c. XVIII., statute, which passes to their § 165, p. 134. husbands. » Conn. Act 1784. Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377. See: Gen. L. VL, § 3. ^1\\. Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 273; Id. « Thompson Dig., tit. 2, c. 1, § 4, 1880, p. 266, § 6. Chap. XV. § 551.] ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT. 460 abolished, and in the absence of a vahd remainder over the fee vests in the donee or devisee ; ^ in Iowa all limit- ations suspending the power of alienation for a longer period than lives in being and twenty-two years after, are void ; ^ in Kentucky estates-tail are converted into fees-simple ; ^ in Maryland it was declared by a statute in 17S6,* that if a tenant in tail general^ should die intestate the lands should descend in fee-simple, which has been construed to change only the course or manner of transmitting the estate-tail by making the land to descend to all the children of the tenant in tail, cutting out col- lateral heirs ; "^ in Massachusetts a statute was passed in 1791 ' regulating entails ^ and making them liable for the debts of the tenant in tail ; ^ in Michigan estates- tail have been abolished and all estates of inheritance are f ee- ' Ind. Rev. Stat. 1876, p. 368. ■> Iowa Stat. 1873, § 855. 3 Ky. Gen. Stat. 1878, p. 585. See : Sale v. Cruchfleld, 8 Bush (Ky.) 636 ; Daniel v. Thomson, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.)662; Deboe v. Lowen, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 616. " Md. Act 1786, c. 45. See : Rev. Stat., art. 47, § 1 ; Id., art. 44, g 7. Where a testator devised as fol- lows : "Unto my wife, E. C, all my lands during her life, and after the death of my said wife, I give, etc., all the said lands to my son R. and my daughters, Ann, A., E.. and Agnes, to have and to hold the same during their single lives ; and in case my said children, here mentioned, should marry, or my son R. should die without lawful issue, then, and in that case, it is my desire that my son W. have and enjoy the whole of said lands, to him, his heirs and assigns, forever." Held, that the son R. took an estate in fee-tail ; and that, as the statute of Maryland makes such an estate a fee-simple, R.'s wife was entitled to dower therein. Chew V. Chew. 1 Md. 163. 5 Estates-tail speoial,it is thought, still exist in Maryland unaffected by the statute. See : Newton v. Griffith, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 111. ' Roe, Lessee of Posey v. Budd, 21 Md. 477 ; Smith V. Smith, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 314. ' Mass. Act 1791, c. 60. * In the case of Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (13 Cush.) 118, three brothers, Benjamin, Lambert, and Stephen, by the will of their father, took estates tail with cross remainders. In 1805, Lambert conveyed his third to Benjamin and Stephen, in fee, with covenants of war- ranty, by deed executed in presence of two witnesses, for a valuable consideration, and duly acknowledged. Held, that, under St. 1791, c. 60, § 1, this deed barred the entail, and vested Lambert's third equally in the grantees in fee, and that Benjamin and Stephen then held each one-half of the estate, viz., two-sixths in tail under the wiU, and one-sixth in fee under said deed. 9 The statute of 1791, c. 60, § 2, mak- ing estates-tail " subject to the payment of the debts of the tenant in tail, in the same man- ner as otlier real estates," did not make a remainder in tail liable to the debts of the re- mainderman. Holland v. Cruft, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 162. 470 ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT. [Book III. simple, either conditional or absolute ; ^ in Minnesota estates-tail are abolished by statute, and all estates are declared to be estates in fee-simple absolute in the absence of an estate limited after a limited estate granted ; ^ in Mississippi estates-tail are converted into fee-simple estates, but lands may be limited to two living donees in succession, and then to the heirs of the body of the remainderman, and in default of such heirs, to the heirs by the donor in fee-simple ; ^ in Missouri an estate- tail carries an estate for life, with a remainder to the children of the devisee or donee as tenants in fee-simple ; * in New Hampshire the statute of 1789 impliedly repealed the statute -De Donis, and since that time entailed lands descend to the children of the tenant equally ; ^ in New Jersey, as early as 1784 and 1786, it was provided by statute that an estate-tail should become an estate in fee-simple after one descent ; in 1799 the statute was repealed, and under the further statute of 1820 a gift or a devise in tail gives the first taker an estate for life, with a vested remainder in fee-simple in the heir ; ^ in New ' 3 Mich. Compl. L. 1871, c. CXLVII.,§3, p. 1335. « Minn. Rev. Stat. (Bissell's ed.), S 3, p. 613. 3 Miss. Stat. 1871, §3286. See : McKenzie v. Jones, 39 Miss. 330; Jordan v. Roache, 33 Miss. (3 George) 481. " Mo. Stat. 1886, p. 443. 5 N. H. Stats. 1789, pp. 76, 77. See : Jewell v. Warner, 35 N. H. 176. Before this decision it was not settled that estates-tail in New Hampshire were abolished. See : Dunning v. Wherren, 19 N. H. 9; Laddw. Harvey, 31 N. H. (1 Fost.) 536 ; Bell V. Seammon, 15 N. H. 381 ; B.C. 41 Am. Dec. 700 ; HaU V. Chaflfee, 14 N. H. 315 ; Frost V. Cloutman, 7 N. H. 9 ; B.C. 26 Am. Dec. 783. ' Den d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 15 N. J. L. (3 J. S. Gr.) 404 ; Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 385, 287 ; Den ex d. Spaoius v. Spacius, 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 173 ; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 480. The Supreme Court of the United States say, in the case of Croxall V. Sherrerd, 73 U. S. (5 WaU.) 268 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 573, that the Legislature of the state of New Jersey has power to bar an en- tail by a private act, and divide the estate equally between the children in fee. Where all the parties interested consent thereto, no imputation of fraud is made, the partition is by dis- interested commissioners, and their action is confirmed by mutual conveyances and re- leases. By tie present statute of New Jersey, in every case in which an es- tate-tail by the rules of the common law is created, the eleventh section of the New Jersey act of descents — abolish- ing fees-tail — applies ; and this result would obtain if an estate-- tail with a fee-simple expectant thereon should be created. Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J. L. (10 Vr.) 373. Chap. XV. § 551.] ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT. 471 York estates in tail were abolished by the statutes 1782 and 1TS6, and converted into fee-simple estates ; ^ in North Carolina tenants of an estate-tail are deemed seized in fee-simple under the statute ;2 in Ohio, by statute, an estate-tail becomes an estate in fee-simple in ' See : Nellis v. Nellis, 99 N. Y. 505: S.C. 3 N. E. Rep. 59; 1 Cent. Rep. 396, 299 ; Lott V. Wykoff, 3 N. Y. 355, affirming s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 565; Lion V. Burtiss, 20 John. (N. Y.) 483; Anderson v. Jackson, 16 John. (N. Y.) 383 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo. 330; Roosevelt v. Thurman, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 320. The New York act of 1786 ap- plied to estates-tail in remain- der equally with those in posses- sion. Wendell v. CrandaU, 1 N. Y. 491 ; Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 35 ; Grout V. Townsend, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 366 ; Vanderheyden v. CrandaU, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 9 ; Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John. (N. Y.) 169. Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 53 U. S. (11 How.) 297 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 703. The Supreme Court of the United States say, in the case of Van Rensselaer v. Kearnev, 52 U. S. (11 How.) 397 ; bk. "l3 L. ed. 703, that the statute of New York of February 23, 1786, abolishing estates-tail, and pro- viding that all persons who then were, or who, but for that statute, would thereafter, by virtue of any devise or convey- ance, become seized in fee-tail of any real estate, should be deemed to be seized of the same in fee-simple, has been con- strued by the courts of New York to include estates-tail in remainder, as well as in posses- sion, and their construction is followed by the courts of the United States. Limitation over to survivors cut off. — Where a testator, by his will, which took effect in 1801, de- vised his real estate to his four sons and the heirs of their bodies, share and share alike ; if any one of them should die without issue, his share was to gotothesurvivors, to be equally divided among them ; and if all the sons should die without issue, the estate was to go to the children of the daughters ; the court held : (1) That, by the primary devise to the sons, they took estates-tail, with contin- gent cross-remainders, which, by the New York statute of 1786, abolishing entails, were converted into absolute estates ; (2) that the limitations over to the survivors among the sons, and to the children of the daughters, were cut off by that statute. Lott V. Wykoff, 3 N. Y. 355 ; s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 565. See : Lion v. Burtiss, 20 John. (N. Y.) 483. = Battle's Rev. 1873, p. 383. See : Ross v. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.) L. 376 ; Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks. (N. C.)247; Wells V. Newbold, 1 Tayl. (N. C.) 166 ; s.c. C. & N. Conf. 375. The act of North Carolina of 1784, c. 22, converted no estates-tail into estates in fee, but such whereof there was a person "seized or possessed," and confirmed only such alienations in fee as had been made by tenants in tail in possession since the year 1777. Wells ^J. Newbold, 1 Tayl. (N. C.) 166 ; s.c. C. & N. 375. Under this statute a devise of lands to A for life, and after her death to be equally divided among the heirs of her body, and for want of such heirs tlien over, gives A an estate-tail in the land, which, by the act, is converted into a fee. ' Ross V. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.) L. 376. See Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks. (N. C.) 247. 472 ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT. [Book III. the issue of the tenant in tail ; ^ in Pennsylvania it is provided by a statute,^ that when " by any gift, con- veyance, or devise an estate-tail would be created accord- ing to the existing laws of the state, it shall be taken and construed to be an estate in fee-simple, and as such shall be inheritable and freely alienable ; " in Ehode Island estates-tail are limited to the children of the first devisee ; ^ in Virginia an act was passed in 1T76 abolish- ing all entails and converting them into fees-simple ; * 1 1 S. & C. Rev. Stat. 550. Under the Ohio entailment act of 1812, § 355,— providing that all estates given in tail shall be and remain an absolute estate in fee-simple, to the issue of the first devisee in tail, — where realty is devised to the children of A for life, and in case of death of one or more of said children, before the devise takes effect, leaving issue, then the share of such child to such issue for life, with remainder over for life to the issue of such issue, and in this manner down in entailment as far as may be allowed by the statute, the fee does not vest in the issue of the children of A, but in the issue of such issue ; and in default of the issue of such issue, the property reverts to the heirs at law of the testator. Gibson v. Moulton, 2 Disn. (Ohio) 158. 2 Act April 37, 1855, § 1 ; P. L. 368 ; IPrud. Dig., p. 630, pi. 8. This act applied only to estates- tail created after ite passage. Reinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St. 488, 491. Descant of estates-taU in Pennsyl- vania. — Estates-tail descend in Pennsylvania as at common law. See : Nicholson v. Bettle, 57 Pa. St. 384 ; Reinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St. 491; Guthrie's Appeal. 37 Pa. St. 9. Sale of estate-tail on execution. — A testator devised his dwelling to one for " his natural life, not to be sold or exchanged while he lives, and at his death to vest in his heirs as tenants in com- mon ; " but should he die with- out issue, then the said prop- erty to be equally divided among, and descend to, the surviving heirs of the testator. The devisee's interest having been sold by the sheriff, on case stated as to the title conveyed thereby, it was held, that the devisee took an estate-tail in the dwelling, which under the act of 15th April, 1859, became a fee-simple in the purchaser at sheriff's sale. Curtis V. Longstreth, 44 Pa. St. 397 3R. L Gen. Stats., c. 171, § 3, p. OLD, This statute has been held tD continue an entailment through the life of the first devisee in tail, and then to enlarge the estate to a fee-simple in the children of the devisee. Wilcox V. Heywood, 13 R. I. 196, overruUng Lippit v. Huston, 8 R. I. 415, 434 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 115. See: Sutton v. Miles, 10 R. I. 348. ^ See : Tinsley v. Jones, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 389 ; Eldridge v. Fisher, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.)559; Doe V. Craiger, 8 Leigh (Va.) Thomason v. Andersons, 4 Leigh (Va.) 118 ; Bramble v. Billups, 4 Leigh (Va.) Jiggetts V. Davis, 1 Leigh (Va.) 368. Ball V. Payn, 6 Rand. (Va.) 73. Kendall v. Eyre, 1 Rand. (Va.) 388. This act has been characterized as "a great general common recovery." Chap. XV. § 552.] EQUITABLE ESTATES-TAIL. 4Y3 in West Virginia the law is the same as the law in Vir- ginia ; ^ in Vermont an estate-tail becomes a life estate in the first taker, with a remainder in fee-simple to the heir at common law ; ^ in Wisconsin estates-tail are abolished, and all estates of inheritance are fees-simple absolute, in the absence of a limited estate carved out of the fee-simple.^ Sec. 552. Equitable estates-tail.— An equitable estate- tail may be barred in the same manner as an estate-tail at law,* and a mere covenant with a remainderman will not prevent a bar of such an estate.^ The Supreme Court of the United States says in the case of Croxall v. Sherrerd,^ that a trust estate, like a legal estate, is descendible, devisable, alienable, and barrable by the act of the parties, and by matter of record. Generally, whatever is true at law of the legal estate is true in equity of the trust estate.'' See : Omdoff v. Turman. 3 Leigh « 73 U. S. (5 WaU.) 368, 381 ; bk. (Va.)200 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 608. 18 L. ed. 273, 377. 1 See : W. Va. Code 1868, 460. ' See : Walton v. Walton, 7 John. 2 Vt. Gen. Laws 1863, p. 446. Ch. (N. Y.) 358 ; s.c. 11 Am. 3 Wis. Rev. Stat. 1878, c. 95, § Dec. 456 ; 3027. Doe v. Laning, 2 Burr. 1109 ; *See: Croxall v. Sherrerd, 73 U. Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 3 Jac.& S. (5 Wall.) 368, 381 ; bk. 18 L. W. 148. ed. 573. Philips v. Brydges, 3 Ves. 137. 5 Doyle V. Mullady, 33 Pa. St. 264. CHAPTER XVI. ESTATES FOR LIFE. SECTlOil I. Nature and incidents of life estates. Section II. Duties incident to life estates, tenures, etc. Section III. Estate pitr autre vie. Section IV. How estates for life created. Section V. Emblements. Section VI. Estovers. Section VII. Waste. Section I. — Nature and Incidents of Lite Estates. Sec. 553. Introductory. Sec. 554. Estate for life under feudal law Sec. 555. Same — Term of grant — Formal words of instrument, Sec. 556. Definition of a life estate. Sec. 557. Estate for life a freehold. Sec. 558. What constitutes an estate for life. Sec. 559. Kinds of estates for life. Sec. 560. Estates for life of the tenant. Sec. 561. Quasi tenants for life — Ecclesiastical persons. Sec. 563. Determinable estates for life. Sec. 563. Same — Special occupant. Sec. 564. Life estate by implication. Sec. 565. Same — ^What creates life estate by implication. Sec. 566. Same — Adding words of limitation. Sec. 567. Same — Absurd and superfluous expressions. Sec. 568. Same — Same — Eeason for the rule. Sec. 569. Tenancy by the curtesy, etc. Sec. 570. Conditions attached to life estates. Sec. 571. Same — Liability for debts of tenant. Sec. 573. Enlargement of life estate to a fee. Sec. 573. Same — Power of disposition by wiU. Sec. 574. Nature of an estate for life. Sec. 575. Same — Possession of tenant possession of reversioner. Sec. 576. Same — Adverse title — Purchase by life tenant. Sec. 577. Same— Not entailable. Sec. 578. Bights and incidents of an estate for life — 1. Right to posses- sion and products. Sec. 579. Same — Same — Right of possession of title-deeds. Sec. 580. Same — 3. Right to recover damages. 474 Chap. XVI. § 553.] ESTATES FOR LIFE. 475 Sec. 581. Sec. 583. Sec. 583. Sec. 584. Sec. 585. Sec. 586. Sec. 587. Sec, 588. Sec. 589. Sec. 590. Sec. 591. Sec. 592. Sec. 593. Sec. 594. Sec. 595. Sec. 596. Same — Same — Rules of valuation of life estate. Sam.e — 3. Eight to estovers, etc. Same — 4. Right to work mines, quarries, etc. Same — Same — Right to open new mines, pits, and shafts. Same — Same — Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining Co. Same — 5. Right to lease. Same — 6. Eight to rents and profits. Same — Same — Apportionment of rent. Same— 7. Right to protection against sudden determination of estate. Same — 8. Right of alienation. Same — Same — Restraint on alienation. Same — Same — Same — Active trust — Pennsylvania doctrine. Same — Same — Same — Withdrawing estate from creditors. Same — Same — Must be made by deed. Same — Same — How great an estate may be conveyed by life tenant. Same— Same — Passes by assignment for benefit of creditors. Section 553. introductory.— An estate for life ranks next in importance to an estate in fee-simple because its dura- tion is usually measured by a human life, and the estate is regarded as a freehold.^ This estate embraces all free- holds not of inheritance, including, alike, estates held by a tenant for the term of his own life ; for the life or lives of another person or persons ; for an indefinite period that may*endure for the life or lives of a person or per- sons in being, and not beyond the period of a life ; ^ and a general grant without defining the limits of the estate.^ ■See: Post, §557. ^ Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. & C. 321, 228 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 487, 440. Such as a grant or lease as long as the grantee shall dwell in a certain house (3 Co. Litt. , 19th ed., 42a); continue vicar of the parish (Brewer v. HiU, 2 Anstr. 413; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 596); maintain salt-works on his own land (Hurd v. Gushing, 34 Mass., 7 Pick., 169), or a cheese factory on the land devised (Warner v. Tanner, 88 Ohio St. 118); or until the grantor makes B bailey of his manor (Butler & Ridgeley, H. 37 EL). 2 3BI. Com. 121. Grant for uncertain length of time — Freehold estate. — In the case of Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. & C.221,238 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 437, 440, the declaration claimed, as a Ucense and authority granted of tlie plaintiff's landlords, their Iieirs and assigns, to make a drain, and have the foul water pass from their scuUery through tlie drain across the defendant's yard. One of the counts claimed it indefinitely, without fixing any limits ; others restricted it either to the time the defendant should con- tinue possessed of his yard or house, or so long as it should be requisite for the convenient occupation of the plaintiff's house ; some stated, as part of the consideration, that defend- ant's landlords should do some repairs to the defendant's premises ; others did not. The court say : "Now, what is the interest these counts stated ? A 476 GRANTING ESTATE FOR LIFE. [Book III. Sec. 554:. Estate for life xmder feudal law.— Estates for life are the most interesting, if tHey are not the most ancient, class of estates in land. Under the feudal system, from which, as we have already seen,i our laws relating to and governing real property are derived, and 1 to which they owe so much of their character, an estate for life was esteemed of higher dignity than the longest estate for years ; and was inalienable, unless the consent of the lord of whom the tenant held could be first obtained.^ Sec. 555. Same— Term of grant— Formal words of instru- ment.— By the feudal law a grant of lands to a person was considered a grant to him as long as he could hold them — that is, during his life — and no longer.^ The reason for this was because the feudal donations were taken strictly, and not extended beyond the precise terms of the gift by any presumed intent.* On the tenant's death the lands granted reverted to the lord of the manor, who was the grantor, or to his heirs. Where it was in- tended that the descendants of the tenant should, on his decease, succeed to the tenancy, this intention was incor- porated in the instrument by additional words of grant, and the gift was to the tenant "and his heirs," or, in other words, expressive of the intention. The heir thus became a nominee in the original grant and took the freehold interest. In Coke on Litt., 19th ed., 42a) specifies Littleton, page 42, it is said : 'If two or three other instances, a man grant an estate to a but adds, that in pleading, the woman dum sole, etc. , or as limitation ought to be pleaded long as the grantee dwells in and continuance averred ; and such a house, etc., or for any Blackstone, in his Commen- like uncertain time, which taries (vol. II., p. 121), lays it time, as Bracton saith, is tern- down that a general grant, pus indeterminatum, • in all without defining the limits of these cases, if it be of lands or the estate, passes an estate for tenements, the lessee hath, in life ; and Brewer v. Hill, 3 judgment of law, an estate for Anstr. 413 ; s.c. 3 Eev. Eep. life determinable, if livery be 596, is an authority to show made ; and if it be of rents, that a lease fronii a vicar, so advowsons, or any other things long as he should continue that lie in grant, he hath a like vicar, passes an estate for life."' estate for life by the delivery ' See : Ante, § 148, et seq. of the deed, and in court or ' 2 Bl. Com. 57 ; pleading he shall allege the Wright, Ten. 29. lease, and conclude that by ' Bract., lib. II., fol. 92b, par. 6. force thereof he was seized ^ Wright, Ten. 1?, 152. generally for the term of his See : 2 Bl. Com. 121'. Ufe.' Lord Hale (note to 1 Co. Chap. XVI. §§ 556, 557.] DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE. 477 estate from the grantor and not from his ancestor. In such a case the ancestor and the heir took equally as a succession of usufructuaries, each of whom, during his life, enjoyed the beneficial, but none of whom possessed, or could lawfully dispose of, the direct or absolute dominion of the property.^ Sec. 556. Definition of a life estate.— Strictly speaking, an estate for hfe is an interest in land which is limited to the life of the tenant, or to the life or lives of another person or persons than that of the tenant ; but the term has been so extended as to include all freehold estates not of inheritance, the duration of which may be deter- mined by the happening or not happening of an uncertain event.^ Sec. 557. Estate for life a freehold.— An estate for life denoted anciently an estate held by a freeman, indepen- dently of the mere will and caprice of the feudal lord ; and the term was used in contradistinction to an estate for a term of years in lands held in villeinage or copyhold, which estates were originally liable to be deter- mined at pleasure.^ Under the feudal law these estates were created by livery of seisin, and for that reason the tenants owed fealty to the lord, not homage, which was due only from the one who had the inheritance. Under our laws any estate of inheritance or for life in real property, whether it be a corporeal or an incorporeal 1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 191a, note 1. Foster v. Joyce, 3 Wash. C. C. See : Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Wm. 498 ; Bl. 133. Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. & = Eldridge v. Preble, 34 Me. 148, C. 221, 228 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 151; 437,440; Hurd V. Gushing, 24 Mass. (7 2 Bl. Com. 121 ; Pick.) 169 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a. Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280, Bracton siys : "Ad tempus mdeter- 285 ; minatum absque aliqua certa Clark V. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434 ; temporis praafinitione." Bract., Roseboom v. Van Vechten, 5 lib. IV., c. 28, fol. 207. Den. (N. Y.) 414 ; Justinian's definition. — An estate Jackson v. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.) for life is in most respects 388 I s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 504 ; similar to the usufructus of the People ex rel. Norton v. GriUis, 24 civil law, whicli is thus defined Wend. (N. Y.) 201 ; by Justinian in Iiis Institutes : Garland v. Crow, 2 -Bail. (S. C.) ""Usufructus est jus alienis re- L. 24 ; bus utendi fruendi, salva rerum Deiamatte v. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.) substantia. " 499 ; " 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 23, 27. 478 WHAT CONSTITUTES. [Book III. hereditament, may justly be termed a freehold. Under ■the ancient law a freehold interest brought to the owner certain valuable rights and privileges, which conferred apon him importance and dignity as a freeholder and freeman. Thus he became a suitor of the courts, and was entitled to sit as juror ; he had the right to vote for members of Parliament, and to defend the title to his land ; he was a necessary party in real actions, and had a right to call in the aid of the revisioner or the remain- derman when the inheritance was demanded.-^ Sec. 568. What constitutes estate for life.— An estate will be regarded as an estate for life where there is a grant or devise to a person expressly for life,^ or to him without words of limitation,^ or to him for the life or lives of another person or persons ;* or as long as he shall main- tain salt-works,'' or a cheese-house,® or keep a saw-mill and grist-mill doing business^ on the devised premises ; or to a woman so long as she shall remain a widow,® or to a man and wife during coverture, or to a man as long as he shall live in a certain house, ^ or until the rental shall pay a specified sum,^" or a like uncertain period. ^^ A life estate may be created by reservation as well as grant. Thus, where land is granted, reserving to the grantor the use and control of the lands during his natural life, the reservation creates a life estate in the land granted. ^^ To this rule as to the creation of life estates, by grant or devise, there is an exception in those cases where there is a devise of lands to executors in trust until the testator's debts are paid, such devises passing a chattel and not a freehold interest. ' 1 Prest. Est. 206-310. s gee : Eoseboom v. Van Vechten, 5 ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a. Den. (N. Y.) 414 2 3 Bl. Com. 131. 9 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a. The court cite on this point: Whitfield V. Bewit, 3 Pr. Wms. Bagot v. Bagot, 33 Beav. 509 ; 243. Legge v. Legge, 33 Beav. 515. 49G EIGHT TO LEASE. [Book HI. taken out by a former owner by digging will not of itself authorize the working of mines on the property, if it ap- pears that such former owner never intended to open a mine, especially in a case where the digging ceased more than sixty years before the working by the life tenant began, although the law gives to the life tenant the right to pursue, by mining, the same means of deriving profits from the lands which were taken by the former owner, even though it be destructive of the substance of the estate itself ; ^ and that if it appears that the former owner never intended to mine at all, the life tenant will not have the right. When this case was brought before the Court of Errors and Appeals for review, it was held that the life tenant has a right to use a mine for his own profit where the owner of the fee, in his lifetime, opened it, even though he may have discontinued work upon it for a long period of years ; that a mere cessation of work, for however long a period, will not defeat the life tenant's right to work the mine, but that an abandonment for one day, with an executed intention to devote the land to some other use, will be fatal to the claim of the life tenant.^ Sec. 586. Same— 5. Eight to lease.— A tenant for life has the right and power to make under-leases for a term less than or equal to that of his own, and the under-ten- ant wUl have powers and privileges during his tenancy like to those incident to the tenant for life ; ^ but at com- ^ See : Rook-well v. Morgan, 13 N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 384. 2 Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining Co., 33 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 603. ■■' MUes V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 363 ; Jackson ex d. Murphy v. Van Hoesen, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 325. Under-tenants or lessees had greater indulgences at common law, Blackstone declares, than their lessors, the original tenants for life. The same ; for the law of estovers and emblements, with regard to the tenant for life, is also law with regard to his under-tenant, who represents him and stands in his place ; and greater, for in those cases where tenant for life shall not have the emblements, because the estate determines by his own act, the exception shall not reach his lessee, who is a third person. As in the case of a woman who holds durante viduitate, her taking husband is her own act, and therefore deprives her of the emblements; but if she leases her estate to an under-tenant, vsrho sows the land, and she then marries, this her act will not deprive the tenant of his emblements, who is a stranger and could not prevent her. The lessees of tenants for life had also at common law another most un- reasonable advantage; for at the death of their lessors, the Chap. XVI. g§ 587, 588.] RENT— APPORTIONMENT. 497 mon law a tenant for life, unless expressly authorized by the instrument creating the estate, could grant no lease which would have force after the termination of the life estate ; and if he desired to convey his whole interest in the estate he had to do so by deed.^ Sec. 587. Same— 6. Eight to rents and profits.- Being en- titled to the possession of the land the life tenant has an absolute right to the rents and profits of the land accru- ing during the term of his estate,^ and on his death such rents and profits will go to his executors,^ even though the estate is held under a will providing that "none of the property shall be sold before the death of the life tenant, * * * * but the same, together with the increase thereof, shall be kept together."* Sec. 588. Same — Same— Apportionment of rent. — At com- mon law where a tenant for life granted a lease for years, the rent to be paid on a fixed day, and died before the rent became due, the personal representative had no right of action for rent accruing between the last pay-day and the day of the life tenant's death. ^ This rule of the common law was so strictly enforced that we are told in Peere Williams' reports "^ of a case where the rent lacked one hour of falling due when the life tenant died, and the reversioner took the rent. But this rule of the common law has been remedied by statutory changes in England, and in this country in such cases the rent is tenants for life, these under- Forsey v. Luton, 3 Head (Tenn). tenants might, if they pleased, 183. quit the premises and pay no ^ See : Post, § 589. rent to anybody for the oocu- '' Tatum v. McLellan, 56 Miss. 353, pation of the land since the last i* Fitchburg Cotton Co. v. Melvin, quarter-day, or other day as- 15 Mass. 268 ; signed for the payment of rent. Perry v. Aldrich, 13 N. H. 343 ; 2 Bl. Com. 123, 124 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 493 ; Clun's Case, 10 Co. 127. Clun's Case, 10 Co. 138 ; ' Stewart v. Clark, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 2 Bl. Com. 134. 79 ; See : Smith v. Shepard, 32 Mass. Jackson exd. McCrae v. Mancius, (15 Pick.) 147 ; s.c. 25 Am. Dec, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357, 365. 432. ' McCampbell v. McCampbell, 5 * Strafford v. Wentworth, 1 Pr. Ch. Litt. (Ky.) 93 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 555. 48 ; See : Rockingham v. Penrice. 1 Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 333 ; Pr. Wms. 178. Brooks V. Brooks, 13 S. C. 433 ; 32 498 PROTECTION AGAINST ENDING.! [Book III. apportioned between the life tenant and the reversioner or remainderman, giving to each his pro rata share ac- cording to the time the estate was enjoyed before and after the hfe tenant's death. ^ Sec. 589. Same — 7. Eight to protection against sudden determination of estate.— The determination of an estate for hfe being contingent and uncertain, a tenant for life is entitled to protection from its sudden ending, and he or his representatives will be entitled to the emblements or profit of the crops produced by his annual planting and culture.^ This is because the estate was determined by the act of God, and it is a well-established rule that actus Dei nemini facit injuriam, the act of God does in- jury to no man ; in other words, no one shall be held re- sponsible in damages for, or made to suffer in his rights because of, such happenings and events as grow out of, and result from, the constitution of nature, which are commonly denominated as " acts of God."^ ' See : Price v. Pickett, 21 Ala. 741; Borie v. Crissman, 83 Pa. St. 135 ; 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 469, 470. ^ Fruits, the product of permanent roots, like grasses, the fruits of trees and shrubs, and the like, are not included. Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N. Y.) 108. Mere preparation of the soil for crops, without their having been act- ually planted when the estate tei'minates, will not give the tenant a right to emblements. Price V. Pickett, 21 Ala, 741; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N. Y.) 108 ; Thompson v. Thompson, 6 Munf. (Va.) 514. A tenant for the life of another on the death of the cestui que vie, or he on whose life the land is held, after the crop is sown, wiU be entitled to the emble- ments. The same is also the rule where a life estate is de- termined by the act of law. 2 Bl. Com. 138. Where an estate for life is determined by the tenant's own act, as by for- feiture for waste committed, or marriage, — where the estate is given to a woman during widowhood, — and the like, the tenant, having thus determined the estate by his own act, will not be entitled to take the em- blements. Oland's Case, 5 Co. 116. ^ Chidester ■;;. Consolidated Ditch Company, 59 Cal. 197 ; Bradley v. Bailey, 56 Conn. 374 ; B.C. 7 Am. St. Eep. 316 ; 15 Atl. Rep. 746 ; 1 L. R. A. 437 ; People V. Utica Cement Co., 33 111. App. 159 ; Ogden V. Robertson, 15 N. J. Eq. (3 J. 8. Gr.) 134, 125 ; State V. Traphagen, 45 N. J. L. (16 Vr.) 134 ; Smith V. Hance, 11 N. J. L. (6 Halst.) 244, 257 ; Garretsie v. Van Ness, 3 N. J. L. (1 Penn.) 21, 34 ; Blumfield's Case, 5 Co. 87a ; Shelley's Case, 1 Co. 97b ; Rex V. Edwards, 4 Taunt. 309 ; Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 37, 38; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 143. By the feudal law, if a tenant for life died between the beginning of September and the end of February, the lord of the manor, who was entitled to the rever- Chap. XVI. §§ 590, 591.] ALIENATION— RESTRAINT ON. 499 Sec. 590. Same— 8. Eight of alienation.— One of the most important rights appertaining to a life estate, as well as to an estate in fee-simple/ is the power of alienation. While it is true that a tenant for life has merely a lim- ited interest, and cannot, of course, make any disposition of the land to take effect after the determination of his estate, yet such tenant is regarded as the possessor of an independent estate, and unless restrained by the terms of his grant, or through covenant or agreement, may con- vey the whole estate, or cut it iip into any number of small estates, so long as he does not exceed the interest he has in the land.^ Sec. 591. Same— Same— Restraint on alienation.— We have heretofore seen that general restraints on alienation of fee-simple estates are void at common law, since the pas- sage of the statute Quia Emptor es in the year 1290.^ The same rule applies to a general restraint on the alien- ation of a life estate, either voluntary by the donee or in- voluntary by process of law.* It is thought that, upon principle, there is no ground upon which, by an arbitrary provision, the grantor or devisor can take away the nat- ural incidents of the estate granted.^ sion, was also entitled to the Hooberry v. Harding, 10 Lea profits of the whole year ; but (Tenn.) 393 ; if the tenant died between the Turleyy. MessengiQ, 7Lea(Tenn.) beginning of March antl the 353 ; end of August the heirs of the Davidson v. Chalmers, 33 Beav. tenant received the whole crop. 653 ; 2 Bl. Com. 123-123 ; Mildmay's Case, 6 Co. 40 ; Feudal 3, t. 28. Stukeley v. Butler, Hob. 168 ; ' See : Ante, § 364, et seq. Renaud v. Tourangeau, L. R. 2 ' Jackson ex d. Murphy v. Van P. C. 4 ; Hoesen, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 325. Re Wolstenholme, 43 L. T. 753 ; ^ See : Ante, § 284, et seq. Pierce v. Win, 1 Vent. 321 ; s.c. ■• See : Ante, §§ 289-291. PoUexf. 345 ; ' McCleary v. Ellis, 54 Iowa 311 ; Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. Jr. s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 205 ; 6 N. W. 334 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 7 ; Rep. 571 ; Re Dugdale, 38 Ch. D. 176 ; s.c. Rona V. Meier, 47 Iowa 607 ; s.c. 57 L. J. Ch. 634 ; 29 Am. Rep. 493 ; Corbett v. Corbett, 14 P. D. 7 ; MandlebauQi v. McDonnell, 29 s.c. 57 L. J. P. 97. Mich. 78.; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61 ; In Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. Jr. Hardenburgh v. Blair, 30 N. J. 334; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep.7,the Master Eq. (3 Stew.) 42 ; of the Rolls says: "I have Andersen v. Carey, 36 Ohio St. looked into the cases that have 506; s.o. 38 Am. Rep. 602 ; been mentioned, and find it McCuUough V. Gillmore, 11 Pa. laid down as a rule long ago St. 370 ; established, that where there 500 ACTIVE— TRUST. [BOOK III. Sec. 592. Same— Same— Same— Active trust— Pennsylvania doctrine.— Some of the American cases ^ go far toward up- holding a provision prohibiting alienation. It is well settled in Pennsylvania, and perhaps in other states, that a benefactor has the power of restraining the enjoyment of his bounty, through the medium of the trustee, dur- ing the life of the beneficiary.^ The courts hold that, wherever there is a trust of this nature, it is of necessity an active trust, requiring the legal estate to be vested in the trustee.^ Thus, where there is a devise to a trustee for a life or lives, imposing upon him certain active and continuous duties which are necessary to be performed for the preservation of the remainder, or of the estate granted against the husband or creditors of the donee, or against the improvidence of children, and requiring such trustee to hold the property, and to collect and pay to the beneficiary or otherwise apply the rents and profits, the trust carries with it the legal estate in the lands ; * but where the trust imposed consists simply in a direc- tion to permit a third person to receive the rents and is a gift with a condition in- s.o. 86 Am. Deo. 502 ; consistent with and repugnant Kaj' v. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31, 37 ; to such gift, the condition is s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 399. wholly void." * See : Locke v. Barbour, 62 Ind. See, also : Brandon v. Robinson, 577, 584 ; 18 Ves. 429. Goehriag's Appeal, 81* Pa. St. ' See : Rife v. Gteyer, 59 Pa. St. 283 ; 393 ; s.o. 98 Am. Dec. 351 ; Ogden's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 501 ; White V. White, 30 Vt. 338. Wells v. McCaU, 64 Pa. St. 207, ' Dodson V. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 493, 496 ; 313 ; 100 Am. Deo. 586, 590 ; Sheets' Estate, 52 Pa. St. 257, 267 ; Rife V. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 593 ; s.c. Shanklan's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 113 ; 98 Am. Dec. 351 ; Keyser v. Nicholas, 7 PhUa. (Pa.) Girai-d Life Insurance and Trust 151 ; Company v. Chambers, 46 Pa. Cridland's Estate, 7 Phila. (Pa.) St. 485 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 513 ; 58 ; Bamett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 392 ; Clarke's Estate, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 163. s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 502 ; Discretion of trustee — Vesting of Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.) profits.— It is said by the Su- 33; preme Court of Pennsylvania, Holdship V. Patterson, 7 Watts in the case of Keyser tJ.Mitchell, (Pa.) 547 ; 67 Pa. St. 473, that where in a Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts (Pa.) 19 ; trust the direction for payment Ashhurst v. Given, 5 Watts & S. of rents and profits permits (Pa.) 323. such payments to be made or » Rife V. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 393 ; not, in the trustee's discretion, S.C. 98 Am. Dec. 351 ; such rents and profits until Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 33. paid do not vest in the benefl- See : Shankland's Appeal, 47 Pa. clary so as to be subject to St. 113 ; attachment or execution. Bamett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 399 ; Chap. XVI. §§ 593-595.] CONVEYANCE OF LIFE ESTATE. 501 profits, the trust does not carry the legal title, and the estate will vest immediately in the beneficiary.^ Sec. 593. Same— Same — Sam.e— Withdrawing estate from creditors.— A provision that an equitable fee shall not be subject to the claims of creditors is void ; ^ but a limita- tion over on alienation or attempt at alienation by the grantee or donee, or on his becoming a bankrupt, is valid,* and will be more fully discussed hereafter, when we come to treat of trust estates. Sec. 694. Same— Same— Must be made by deed.— A life estate is a freehold, and all freehold estates can be con- veyed only by deed properly executed* and duly sealed. ** Calling an instrument a deed and delivering and treating it as such is of no avail, unless it be sealed.'^ Sec. 595. Same— Same— How great an estate may be con- veyed by life tenant.— A life tenant being regarded as pos- sessing a separate estate, as already pointed out,^ is entitled to convey the whole or any portion of the estate ' Tappan's Appeal, 55 N. H. 317, H. 393 ; 321. Goodyear i\ Vosburgh, 57 Barb. 2 Taylor v. Harwell, 65 Ala. 1 ; (N. Y.) 243 ; s.c. 39 How. Pr. Gray v. Obear, 59 Georgia 675 ; 3T7 ; Gray v. Obear, 54 Georgia 231 ; Jackson ex d. Wads worth v. Keyser's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 336. Wendell, 12 John. (N. Y.) 355 ; ' Ancona i'. Waddell, 10 Ch. Div. Jackson ex d. Gouchv. Wood, 12 157 ; s.c. 26 Moak's Eng. Rep. John. (N. Y.) 78 ; 594 ; People ex rel. Noi-ton v. GiUis, 24 Rochford v. Haokman, 9 Hare Wend. 201. 475; s.c. 21 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. « Deming ?;. BuUitt, 1 Blackf . (Ind.) 511 ; 10 Eng. L. & Eq. 64 ; 241 ; Craven v. Brady, L. R. 4 Ch. 296 ; State v. Peck, 53 Me. 284, 299 ; Cox V. Fonblanque, L. R. 6 Eq. Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 38 482 ; Mass. (21 Pick.) 417 ; Eoffey V. Bent, L. R. 3 Eq. 759 ; Bradford v. Randall, 32 Mass. (5 Oldham v. Oldham, L. R. 3 Eq. Pick.) 496 ; 404 ; Alexander v. Polk, 89 Miss. 737 ; White V. Chitty, L. R. 1 Eq. 372. Davis v. Brandon, 3 Miss. (1 How.) < See : Stewart v. Qark, 54 Mass. 154 ; (18 Met.) 79 ; Atlantic Dock Company v. Lea- Jackson ex d. Gouch v. Wood, 13 vitt, 54 N. Y. 35 ; John. (N. Y.) 73 ; Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 John. People ex rel. Norton v. Gillis, 24 (N. Y.) 385 : Wend. (N. Y.) 301 ; Warren v. Lynch, 5 John. (N. Y.) Jackson exd. McCreat). Mancius, 239 ; 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357, 365. Wadsworth v. Wendell, 5 John. ' Barger v. Hobbs, 67 111. 593 ; Ch. (N. Y.) 324 ; Pile V. McBratney, 15 111. 314 ; Taylor v. Glazer, 2 Serg. & R. McCable v. Hunter, 7 Mo. 855 ; (Pa.) 503. Underwood v. Campbell, 14 N. ■" See : Ante, § 590. 502 ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS. [Book III. which he possesses. ^ If the tenant for hf e should attempt to create a greater estate than he himself possesses — as to convey by deed in fee-simple — the instrument must necessarily be void, upon the principle that nemo dat quad habet. If the party entitled to the inheritance should join in the" deed with the tenant for life, however, the instrument will convey the entire inheritance. Under the English common law, if a tenant for life conveyed a greater estate than he was by law entitled to, such conveyance worked a forfeiture of his estate to the next person entitled in remainder or reversion ; for the reason that by such conveyance the tenant for life put an end to his original interest, and the act, in its nature, tended to divert the expectant estate in the remainder or rever- sion.2 Sec. 596. Same — Same— Passes by assignment for benefit of creditors.— A proviso in a deed or bequest, that the prop- erty shall not be subject to the debts or contracts of the grantee or legatee, he being of full age and competent to contract debts, btit that the same shall remain in his pos- session for his sole use during his life, with remainder over, is void ; ^ and such a life estate will pass by assign- ment under insolvent laws.* Section II. — Duties Incident to Life Estates, Tenures, etc. Sec. 597. Duties of tenants of life estates— 1. To defend title— Praying in aid. Sec. 598. Same— 2. To pay taxes— a. Ordinary taxes. Sec. 599. Same — Same— b. Betterments. Sec. 600. Same— 3. To make repairs. Sec. 601. Same — Same — Exception to the rule Sec. 603. Same — 4. To keep down interest. Sec. 603. Same — Same — Former rule. Sec. 604. Same — Same — Rule as to widows. Sec. 605. Same— 5. To pay incumbrances. Sec. 606. Same — Same — Apportionment of incumbrances. Sec. 607. Same — Same — Rule where widow is life tenant. Sec. 608. Same— 6. To insure. 'Jackson ex d. Murphy v. Van * See : Verdierw. Youngblood, Rich. Hoesen, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 335. (8. C.) Eq. Cas. 330 ; s.c. 34 * See : Post, § 614. Am. Deo. 417. ' See : Ante, §§ 591, 593. Chap. XVI. § 597.] DUTIES OF LIFE TENANT. 503 Sec. 609. Tenure of estate for life. Sec. 610. Permanent improvements — Eights of parties. Sec. 611. Same — Exceptions to the rule. Sec. 613. Partition by life tenant. Sec. 613. Forfeiture of life estate. Sec. 614. Same — 1. By conveying in fee. Sec. 615. Same — 2. By adverse possession. Sec. 616. Same— 3. By waste. Sec. 617. Valuation of life estate. Sec. 618. Same— English rule. Sec. 619. Same — American rule. Sec. 630. Merger of life estates. Sec. 621. Same — Estates pur autre vie. Sec. 623. Termination of life estate. Sec. 623. Same — Exception to the rule. Sec. 624. Same — Presumption of death. Section 597. Duties of tenants of life estates— 1. To defend title— Praying in aid.— There are certain duties incumbent upon the tenant of a life estate, among which is that of defending the title of the estate, when it is attacked in any of the real actions at common law which concluded the title. The reason for this is because the interests of the reversioner or remainderman might be affected by the judgment rendered in such an action against the tenant for life. At common law, in all real actions, a tenant for life might call for the assistance of the per- sons entitled to the inheritance to assist him in the defense of ' his title ; because the tenant for life is gen- erally presumed to have in his custody the muniments of title and evidences necessary to establish the right to the inheritance.^ This was technically called " praying in aid." The life tenant was not obliged to "pray in aid," but being in law the proper tenant of theprcecipe, might go on and defend without resorting to or calling in the aid of the owner of the inheritance, except those whose estates were dependent on the result of the action.^ The custom of "praying in aid" formerly existed in this country, as in Massachusetts, where it has been dis- 1 See : Scanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass. 2 BI. Com. 428 ; (13 Pick.) 523 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. Booth's Real Act. 60. 344 ; 2 See : 1 Prest. Est. 307, 208 ; Hathaway v. Spooner, 36 Mass. (9 Stern's Real Act. 99 ; Pick.) 33 ; Termes de la Ley, " Aid." 504 PAYING TAXES. [Book III. continued by the abolition of the writs of right ; ^ and in England the custom passed away with the abolition of the real actions.^ Sec. 598. Same — 2. To pay taxes— a. Ordinary taxes. — Another duty of the tenant of a life estate is to pay and keep down the ordinary taxes assessed upon the land during the continuance of his estate.^ Should the tenant of the life estate neglect or refuse to pay the ordinary taxes assessed against the land during his life, the remainderman or reversioner may make application to a court and have a receiver appointed to collect the rents and income, and apply so much thereof as may be necessary to the payment of such taxes and costs.* In some of the states, as in Ohio, non-payment of taxes by a life tenant works a forfeiture of. the estate.^ Where the life tenant neglects or refuses to pay the taxes, and suffers the land to be sold therefor, and buys it in at the sale, he will not be allowed to set up the tax title against ' See : Mass. Pub. Stat., c. 173, § 1 ; Stem's Real Act. 103. s See : 1 Prest. Est. 307 ; 1 Spenoe Eq. Jur. 207. ^ See : Prettyman v. Walston, 34 lU. 175, i92 ; Fox V. Long, 8 Bush (Ky.) 551 ; Johnson v. Smith, 5 Bush (Ky.) 103; Vamey v. Stevens, 33 Me. 331 ; Plympton v. Boston Dispensary, 106 Mass. 544, 547 ; Pierce v. Burroughs, 84 N. H. 304; Jonas V. Hunt, 40 N. J. Eq. (13 Stew.) 660 ; Cadmus v. Combes, 37 N. J. Eq. (10 Stew.) 364; Thomas v. Evans, 105 N. Y. 601, 613 ; s.c. 59 Am. Eep. 519 ; 13 N. E. Rep. 571 ; 7 Cent. Rep. 804 ; 25 Cent. L. J. 77 ; Deraismes v. Deraismes, 73 N. Y. 154; Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 313 ; Fleet V. Borland, 11 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 489 ; Wade V. Malloy, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 336 ; Re Miller's Estate, 1 Tuck. (N. Y.) 346 ; McBonald v. HeyUn, 4 Phila. (Pa.) 73; Piper's Estate, 2 W. N. C. 711 ; Jewell's Estate, 1 W. N. C. 404 ; Phelau V. Boylan, 25 Wis. 686 ; Patrick v. Sherwood, 4 Blatchf. C. C. 112 ; Newby v. Brownlee, 23 Fed. Rep. 330; ^ Pike V, Wassell, 94 U. S. 711 ; bk. 24 L. ed. 807, 810 ; Fountaine v. Pellet, 1 Ves. Jr. 337. ^ See : Sidenberg v. Ely, 90 N. Y. 257, 264 ; s.c. 11 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 358 ; * Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 312. ^ ' See : Lessee of McMillan v. Rob- bins, 5 Ohio 28. * This ease is partially reported in 43 Am. Bep. 163, but the editor in his superior wisdom has cut out, as unimportant, all the matter relating to this point, and simply jj^ves that portion of the opinion which deals with the right ol a mortgagee to pay taxes and add the amount to the mortgage debt where the mort- gagor refuses and neglects to do so, and there is no provision in the mortgage giving such a power. Chap. XVI. § 599.] BETTERMENTS. 505 the reversioner or remainderman/ because that would be allowing him to take advantage of his own fraud, ^ which is not permissible. Under such circumstances courts will presume that the life tenant made the pur- chase for the joint benefit of himself and the reversioner or remainderman.^ Sec. 599. Same— Same— b. Betterments.— The rule that the tenant for life must keep down taxes does not apply to extraordinary assessments for permanent improve- ments or betterments of the land, such as an assessment levied upon the laying out of a road ; * although such assessment is a tax, yet it is an extraordinary assess- ment for betterments laid upon the premises, in view of the permanent increased value of the estate by reason of the improvement.® For this reason the assessment must be treated, as between the tenant for life and the remain- derman or reversioner, as an incumbrance on the whole estate, to which the tenant for life must contribute to the extent of interest on the amount paid during his life, and at his death the remainderman to bear the charge of the principal. Equity apportions the burden upon the land between the tenant who has the present enjoyment of the property and the remainderman whose right of enjoyment is postponed until the death of the life tenant.^ ' See : Ante, g 576. Y. 601, 612 ; s.c. 59 Am. Rep. 2 Patrick v. Sherwood, 4 Blatchf. 519 ; 12 N. E. Rep. 571 ; 7 Cent. C. C. 112. Rep. 804 ; 26 Cent. L. J. 77 ; 3 See : Prettyman v. Walston, 34 Peck v. Sherwood, 56 N. Y. 615 ; 111. 175, 192 ; Stillwell v. Doughty, 2 Bradf. (N. Vamey v. Stevens, 22 Me. 331, Y.) 311 ; . 334; Fleet v. Borland, 11 How. Pr, Whitney v. Salter, 36 Minn. 103 ; (N. Y.) 489 ; s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 656 ; 30 N. Dewitt v. Cooper, 18 Hun (N. Y.) W. Rep. 755. 67 ; * It is said in the case of Peck v. Gunning v. Carman, 3 Redf . (N. Sherwood, 56 N. Y. 615, that Y.) 69 ; a municipal acsessment for the Estate of Miller, 1 Tuck. (N. Y.) flagging of sidewalks is not in 346. the nature of an annual tax, to = See : Plympton v. Boston Dispen- be paid entirely by a tenant for sary, 106 Mass. 544, 547 ; life of the premises assessed. Codman -y. Jolmson,104 Mass.491; Nor is it such a permanent im- Harvard College v. Alderman of provement as that he should Boston, 104 Mass. 470. not contribute to its payment, ' Peck v. Sherwood, 56 N. Y. 615 ; but it should be appoitioned Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. between him and the remain- (N. Y.) 312 ; derman. King v. King, 9 Jones & S. (N.Y.) Sec : Thomas v. Evans, 105 N. 516. 5()G MAKING REPAIRS. [Book III. But this rule as to contribution between the life tenant and the remaindernaan or reversioner must be confined to such assessments as are for permanent improvements ; consequently in those cases where the improvement is required by a local ordinance or statute, and from its nature is of such a character that it will require frequent renewals, the expense of making the improvement is to be paid by the life tenant alone. ^ Sec. 600. Same— 3. To make repairs.— Another duty in- cumbent upon a life tenant is to keep the property in repair so far as may be necessary to prevent its running to decay and ruin.^ He must keep the premises in as good repair as he received them ; ® if a roof is needed, he is bound to put it on ; if paint wears off, he is bound to repaint.* If the life tenant receives a house in a state of dilapidation, which can be rendered habitable by repairs, he is bound to make them,^ if it can be done without expending an extraordinary sum ; ^ and if the house is in such a state as not to be repairable, or in such dilapi- dation that the expenses of repairs would be beyond the value of the house, the life tenant is not bound to repair, and may leave the house or other building to its natural destruction.'^ Sec. 601. Same— Same— Exception to the rule.— To the general rule, stated in the preceding section, that if a new roof is needed the life tenant is bound to put it on, See: Cogswell v. Cogswell, 3 Edw. ^ Natural wear and tear not excepted Ch. (N.Y.)231; say the New Jersey Court of Fleet V. Borland, 11 How. Pr. Chancery. (N. y.) 489 ; In re Steele, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E. Bloodgood V. Clark, 4 Paige Ch. Gr.) 130. (N. Y.) 574. 4 In re Steele, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E. 1 Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305. Gr.) 130. See ! Whyte v. Mayor of Nash- See : Wilson v. Edmonds, 34 N.H. viUe, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 364, in (4 Post.) 517 ; which this distinction seems to Piper's Estate, 3 N.W. C. 711. have been overlooked. » Clemenoe v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ; 2 Executors of Kearney t'. Kearney, s.c. 53 Am. Deo 621 17 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; " Wilson v. Edmonds, 24 N. H. 517; Id. 504 ; Brooks w. Brooks, 13 S. C. 433. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ; ' Clemenoe i\ Steere, 1 R. I. 372 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621 ; s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 631 ; Cochran v. Cochran, 3 Des.(S. C.) Wilson v. Edmonds, 34 N H. 531 ; (4 Post.) 517 ; Brough V. Higgins, 3 Gratt. (Va.) Brooks v. Brooks, 13 S. C. 422. 408. Chap. XVI. § 601.] EXCEPTION AS TO EEPAIES. 507 there is an exception in those cases where the estate con- sists of a room or rooms, in a dwelling or other building, which are not located in juxtaposition to the roof ; neither will the tenant be liable to contribute toward the expense of making such repairs.^ The reason for this is because such life tenant and the other owners or occupiers of the dwell- ing are simply adjoining tenants, with as essentially separate and distinct interests as if they were one by the side of the other. ^ Thus in the case of Wiggin v. Wig- gin,^ it was held that a tenant for life of lower rooms of a house and chambers above is not obliged to share in the expenses of repairing the roof of the building, unless incurred at his request. In this case the will gave to the plaintiff, to use an occupancy during her life, all the westerly lower room in the testator's house, the chamber over it, and the northerly front lower room. The de- fendant was the owner of the reversion, and also of the rest of the house. It was claimed by counsel that the plaintiff and defendant were like tenants in common, and that the plaintiff was bound to repair her part of the house. The court say : "If this were so we find no authority that would sanction the making of the repairs by one tenant, without the request of the other, and the recovery of a share of the expenses in assumpsit. In such case the remedy at common law is by writ de re- 2iaratione facienda.* So where one's house is ruinous and likely to fall on his neighbor's house, the same remedy is said to exist, ^ and an action on the case will lie for the neglect to repair by reason of which his neighbor Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. StockweU v. Hunter, 53 Mass. 318 ; s.c. 36 Am. Deo. 396 ; (1 1 Met.) 448 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 230, 223 ; Iowa 67 ; s.c. 11 Am. Eep. 135 Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575. See: Adams v. Marshall, 138 Mass 338, 338-9 ; s.c. 53 Am. Rep, 271; C ilvert V. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74 s c. 96 Am. Dec. 693 ; Wiggin V. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561 Proprietors of Meeting-house v. City of Lowell, 43 Mass. (1 Met.) 541 ; Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575. 43 N. H. 561 ; s.c. 80 Am. Deo. 192. See : Bowles' Case, 11 Co. 79, 82 : Tenant v. Goldwin, 1 Salk. 360 ; s.c 80 Am. Dec. 192. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 54b; 3 Id. ' Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 300b ; 318 ; s.c 26 Am. Deo. 396 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 370. McCormick v. Bishop, 38 Iowa * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56b. 333, 337 ; 508 KEEPING DOWN INTEEEST. [Book III. is injured ; ^ but here the parties are not tenants in com- mon at all, but the plaintiff is seized of certain rooms and the defendant of the remainder of the house ; and in legal contemplation each has a distinct dwelling-house, although they are adjoining ; and no authority is cited or found that would sustain an action at law, by one against the other, to recover for repairs made without request. In Loring v. Bacon,^ the defendant was seized of a lower room and cellar under it, and tlie plaintiff of the chamber above and the remainder of the house ; and repairs to the roof being necessary, the defendant, on request, refused to join in making them ; whereupon the i^laintiff made them and brought assumpsit for a share of the expense. It was held, upon full examina- tion of the authorities, that the action would not lie, and that the defendant was not bound to contribute to the expense ; but that the case stood like that of owners of separate but contiguous houses or mills, where the appro- priate remedy, in case one suffers his building to become ruinous and to endanger or injure the other, is by writ de reparatione facienda, or action on the case. So in Cheeseborough v. Green, ^ where the plaintiff owned and occupied the foundation and the first and second stories of a building, and the defendant the third story and roof, which had become leaky and ruinous, whereby the plaintiff's goods were injured, it was held that an action on the case would not lie, but the remedy must be sought inequity."^ Sec. 602. Same — 4. To keep down interest.— Another duty charged by equity upon the life tenant is that of keeping down, during the continuance of the estate, the interest upon any incumbrance affecting the inheritance, which incumbrance existed at the time of entering upon the estate.^ This doctrine arises from a reasonable rule '■ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56b, note 2 ; Kent's Com. 371-412. Fitzh. N. B. 127, note a. ' Barnum v. Barnum, 43 Md. 251 • ■■' 4 Mass. 575. Thomas v. Thomas, 17 N. J. L. (3 '10 Conn. 319; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. Harr.) 356 ; ^„ 396. Moseley i;. Marshall, 22 N.Y. 300 ; * See, also : Campbell v. Mesiei-, 4 rev'g s.c. 27 Barb (N Y ) 42 • John Ch. (N. Y.) 334; s.c. 8 Cogswell «. Cogswell, 3 Edw. Ch, Am. Dec. 570 ; (N. Y.) 281 ; Chap. XVI. § 602.] AMOUNT TO BE PAID. 509 in equity, the object of which is to make every part of the ownership of real estate bear a ratable part of all incumbrances thereon, and to apportion the burden equit- ably between the parties.^ The tenant for life con- tributes only during the time he enjoys the estate,^ and must keep down the interest during that time even though to do this the rents and profits of the estate be exhausted.^ But the life tenant will not be required to pay towards the interest on the incumbrance anything beyond the amount of the rents accruing, and should he do so he will be a creditor of the estate to the amount of such excess.* And if the profits of a property given for life, and then over, are taken for payment of debts, the tenant for life may claim, from the remaindermen or reversioners, a contribution, in proportion to their respect- ive interests.® The interest of the tenant for life is ascertained according to the common life tables.^ The incumbrance, however, must be a substantial claim dur- ing the existence of the life estate ; consequently where a Jones i\ Sherrard, 2 Dev. & B. (N. C.)Eq. 179; McDonalds. Heylin, 4Phila.(Pa.) 73; Jewell's Estate, 1 W. N. C. 404 ; Hunt V. Watkins, 1 Humph. (Tenn.)498; White V. White, 4 Ves. 24 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 61 ; on appeal, 9 Ves. 554; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 175 ; Penihyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 99. ' 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 74. ' The fonner English rule was that the rents and profits of an estate for life should be applied not only in payment of all interest due during the possession of the tenant for life, but also all interest due before the com- mencement of that estate. See : Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Bro. C. C. 128 ; Penrhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 99. The later English decisions, how- ever, have held that where the estate, subject to a charge bearing interest, is limited to several persons in succession as tenants for life, each tenant for life is liable only for the in- terest for his own time ; but that to liquidate the arrears during his own time, he must furnish, if necessary, all the rents during the whole of his life. Caulfleld v. Maguire, 2 Jones & La T. (Ir. Ch.) 141. ' See : Caulfield v. Maguire, 2 Jones & La T. (Ir. Ch.) 141 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 74, 75. * See : Doane v. Doane, 46 Vt. 485 ; Kensington v. Bouverie, 7 DeG. M. & G. 134. ^ See : Chesson v. Chesson, 8 Ired- .(N.C.)Eq. 141. * See : Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 251 • Wade' V. Malloy, 16 Hun (N. Y.) 226; Hunt V. Watkins, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 488 ; Foster v. HilUafd, 1 Story C. C. 77; Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 606 ; Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Brown C. C. 128; Burges v. Mawbey, Turn. & E. 167; Penrhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 99 ; Amesbury v. Brown, 1 Ves. Sr. 477, 480 ; Revel V. Watkinson, 1 Ves. 98. 510 RULE AS TO WIDOWS. [Book III. debt which is a charge upon the land is not established until after the death of the life tenant, his estate cannot be called iipon to contribute to the payment of either principal or interest.^ If a mortgage or other incumbrance is called in by the mortgagee, or other incumbrancer, the reversioner or remainderman must pay his just proportion.^ If the life tenant is required to contribute toward the payment of a part of the principal, he will be entitled to a credit for the amount of money so paid by him, as against the re- mainderman or reversioner,^ with the qualification of not receiving interest during his life.* Sec. 603. Same— Same— Former rule.— The old rule was that the life estate was to bear one-third part of the entire indebtedness on the land in addition to the annual interest, and the remainderman the residue ; ^ but Sir EiCHARD Pepper Arden, Master of the EoUs, in the case of White V. White, ^ denounced this doctrine to be a most absurd rule, and declared the annual interest alone, aris- ing during the tenant's estate, his just proportion. Sec. 604. Same— Same— Rule as to widows.— The rule in equity above referred to,'' the object of which is to make every part of the ownership of real estate bear a ratable part of the incumbrances upon such estate, requires a widow holding a dower interest in encumbered lands, to keep down one-third part of the accruing interest,^ because she has the present possession and enjoyment of the estate in but one-third of the land.'' And where the • Poindexter's Exrs. v. Green's Shrewsbury, 1 Ves. Jr. 227 233 Exrs., 6 Leigh (Va.) 504. 4 Ves. 24, 32 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 161, = Cogswell V. Cogswell, 2 Edw. Ch. 169. (N. Y.) 331. ' See : Ante, § 602. 'Hunt V. Watkins, 1 Humph. « House t'. House, 10 Paige Ch ' CN (Tenn.) 498. Y.) 158, 164. ^ ' '' See : Earl of Buckinghamshire v. ' Swaine v. Perine, 5 John Ch Hobart, 3 Swanst. 186, 199. (N. Y.) 482 ; s.c. 9 Am Dec ' See : Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Hare 318. 199. 217 ; See : McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla. Ballet V. Sprainger, Prec. in Ch. 698, 705 ; ^.63 ; Gibson v. Crehore, 22 Mass. (5 Rives V. Rives, Prec. in Ch. 21 ; Pick.) 146 ; Rowel V. Walley, 1 Rep. in Ch. Pollard v. Noyes, 68 N. H. 185 • 219; s.c. Atl. Rep. ; County of Shrewsbury v. Earl of Norris 13. Morrison, 45 N. H. 490 • Chap. XVI. §§ 605, 606.] PAYING INCUMBEANCES. 5H mortgage is given for purchase money of the property in which the dower estate is held, when the mortgage is required to be paid off, the widow must contribute towards such payment a sum which will be equal to the then value of an annuity of the amount of one-third of the interest upon the sum uni)aid at her husband's death for the residue of her life.^ Sec. 605. Same— 5. To pay incumbrances.— Although a tenant for life is charged with the important duty of keeping down the interest of any incumbrance on the land during the continuance of the estate, he is not required to pay off the principal, or any part of it ; that is to be done by the owner of the inheritance,^ otherwise the life estate might not only be of no value, but even a burden. If the life tenant, however, pays off the incum- brance of his own accord, he will be presumed to have done so for the benefit of himself and the reversioner or remainderman, who is bound to contribute his portion, and for which contribution the life tenant has a lien on the land ; ^ but if he is compelled to pay off the incum- brance, or to contribute thereto, he will become the creditor of the estate to' the amount of the incumbrance paid or contribution made,* less the interest he would have been required to pay during his term as tenant for life.5 Sec. 606. Same— Same— Apportionment of incumbrances.— Woods V. "Wallace, 30 N. H. (10 " Daviess v. Meyers, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) Fost.) 384 ; 511. Hastings v. Stevens, 29 N. H. (9 ^ Mosely v. Marshall, 37 Barb. (N. Fost.) 564 ; Y.) 42 ; s.o. 22 N. Y. 200 ; Kossiter v. Cossit, 15 N. H. 38 ; Cogswell v. Cogswell, 2 Edw. Ch. Cass V. Martin, 6 N. H. 25 ; (N. Y.) 231 ; Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) Jones v. Sherrard, 2 Dev. & B. 618, 621 ; (N. C.) Eq. 179. Gunning v. Carman, 3 Eedf. Compare : King «. Morris, 2 B. (N. Y.) 69, 71. Mon. (Ky.) 99, 104 ; House V. House, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Hunt v. Watkins, 1 Humph.. Y ) 158, 166. (Tenn.) 498 ; See : Bell v. New York, 10 Paige Wainright v. Hardisty, 3 Beav. Ch. (N. Y.) 49. 363. ' House V. House, 10 Paige Ch. ^ Mosely v. Marshall, 27 Barb. (N. (N. Y.) 158. Y.) 43 ; s.c. 22 N. Y. 200 ; See : Mosely v. Marshall, 23 N. Warley v. Warley, 1 Bailey (S. Y. 200 ; C.) Eq. 397 ; Warley v. Warley, 1 Bail. (S. C.) Saville v. Saville, 3 Atk. 463 ; Eq. 397. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 76. 512 APPOETIONING INCUMBRANCES. [BOOK III. Where the incumbrance on the land subject to a life estate is paid off, the amount of money required for that purpose will be apportioned. Formerly, as we have before seen,^ the life estate was required to bear one- third, and the inheritance two-thirds, of the burden ; but this has been discarded as unreasonable, and the general rule which prevails in this country at the present time in regard to the apportionment of the contribution toward paying off incumbrances, between the life tenant and the remainderman or the reversioner, is that the life tenant shall contribute in proportion to the benefit he receives from the liquidation of the debt.^ Sec. 607. Same— Same— Same— Rule where widow the life tenant.— Where a widow is the life tenant the question is how she is to contribute ratably to the discharge of the mortgage, if the estate in fee, in one equal third part of the premises, ought to pay the one equal third part of the mortgage debt and interest, then what proportion ought the widow's life estate in that one-third part to pay ? This question is fully discussed by Chancellor Kent, in the case of Swaine v. Ferine,^ where it is said that as she "has only a life interest in the dower, and payment of the entire one -third of that debt would be unjust, it would be making her pay for a life estate equally as if it was an estate in fee. The more accurate rule would appear to be, that she should keep down one- third of the interest of the mortgage debt, by paying, during her life, to the defendant, to be computed from the date of such payment ; but as it would be inconven- ient and embarrassing to charge her with such annuity, then let the value of such an annuity from the plaintiff (her age and health considered) be ascertained by one of the masters of the court, and be deducted from the amount of the rents and profits so coming to her ; and if that value should exceed the amount of the rents and profits so coming to her, that then the residue of such 1 See : Ante, § 603. See : 1 Story Eq. Jur. (13th ed.) ' Whiting V. Salter, 36 Minn. 103 ; 487. s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 656 ; 80 N. ^ 5 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 483 ; s.c. 9 W. Rep. 755. Am. Dec. 318, 334. Chap. XVI. §§ 608, 609.] DUTY TO INSURE. 513 value be deducted from the dower to be assigned to her, out of the house and land mentioned in the bill." Sec. 608. Same— 6. To insure.— While a life tenant has an insurable interest in the buildings on the land to which the life estate attaches, yet it is no part of his duty to procure insurance thereon for the benefit of the re- mainderman or reversioner.^ But if he neglects to do so and biiildings are destroyed through his carelessness, he will be required to rebuild. Where insurance is desira- ble each party should pay for the insurance of his re- spective estate ; ^ and where such insurance has been taken out, and there is a partial loss, either the life tenant or the remainderman or reversioner has the right to require that the money received in payment for the loss sustained shall be applied to the repair of the property.^ Where such property has been insured and there is a total loss, the insurance money takes the place of the property, and the life tenant will be entitled to the interest during his life, and after his death the remainderman or reversioner will take the principal.* Sec. 609. Teinire of estate for life.— We have already seen that tenants for life hold of their grantors by fealty,^ and that the possession of the tenant for life, like the possession of the tenant for a term of years, is considered the possession of the reversioner or remainderman,® so far as to prevent the raising of an adverse estate ; '' but the statute of limitation does not begin to run against the reversioner or remainderman during the existence of the particular estate.^ No acts or laches on the part of the ' As to insurance, see : Kearney's HaxaU's Exrs. v. Shippen, 10 Exrs. V. Kearney, 17 N. J. Eq. Leigh (Va.) 536 ; s.c. 34 Am. (2 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; Id. 504 ; Dec. 745. Peck ■y.Sherwood,56 N. Y.615,618 ; « See : Ante, § 574. Graham v. Roberts, 8 Ired. (N. « Grout v. Townsend, 3 HiU (N. Y.) C.) Eq. 99 ; 554. Brough V. Higgins, 3 Gratt. (Va.) ■" See : Ante, § 575. 408. " McCorry v. King's Heirs, 8 ' Kearney's Exrs. v. Kearney, 17 Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; s.c. 39 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; Id. Am. Deo. 165. 504. See : Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. " Brough V. Higgins, 2 Gratt. (Va.) Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; 408. s.o. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; * See : Graham v. Roberts, 8 Ired. Bradford v. Caldwell, 3 Head (N. C.) Eq. 99 ; (Tenn.) 496 ; 33 514 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS. [Book III. tenant for life can affect the interest of the party enti- tled in reversion or remainder ; ^ consequently a forfeit- ure of the estate by the act of the tenant for life will not affect the interest of the reversioner or remainderman, who will not be bound to enter until the natural ter- minus of the life estate.^ Sec. 610. Permanent improvements— Rights of parties.— While a tenant for life is bound to keep the premises in repair, yet he has no right or power to make repairs or permanent improvements at the expense either of the re- mainderman, reversioner, or the inheritance ; ^ and if the remainderman or reversioner makes improvements of a perm.anent character on the land during the existence of the life estate, such improvements become real estate, and inure to the benefit of the life tenant.* Sec. 611. Same— Exceptions to the rule.- To the general rule above stated, however, there are exceptions. Thus, where the donor of a life estate has commenced an im- provement permanently beneficial to the estate, and the life tenant goes on and completes it, the remainderman or reversioner may be required to contribute to the ex- penses thereof,^ and the expense of putting into tenant- able repair an estate for life is chargeable on the estate at large, while the keeping of it in repair after putting in tenantable condition is chargeable on the life tenant,^ Woodson V. Smith, 1 Head See : Austins v. Stevens, 24 Me. (Tenn.) 376, 377 ; 530 ; "Williams v. Com-ad, 11 Hmnph. Merritt v. Scott, 81 N. C. 385 ; (Tenn.) 413; Thompson v. Bostiok, McMuU Jackson ex d. Erwin v. Moore, (S. C.) Eq. 75 ; Cow. (N. Y.) 706, 727 ; s.o. 7 Dellet v. Whitmere, Chev. (S. C.) Am. Dec. 398 ; Eq. 313. Jackson ex d. McCreai!. Mancius, Compare: Ex parte Palmer, 3 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 357, 369 ; Hill (S. C.) Eq. 315. Fogal V. Pino, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) ^ Cooper v. Adams, 60 Mass. (6 113. Cush.) 87. ' Jackson ex d. Hardenbergh v. See : Poor v. Oakman, 104 Mass. Schoonmaker, 4 John. (N. Y.) 309, 317. 390. ' Sohier v. Eldridge, 103 Mass. 345. ^ Jackson ex d. McCrea v. Mancius, See ; Parsons v. Wioslow, 16 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357. Mass. 361 ; 2 Sohier v. Eldridge, 103 Mass. 345, Ex parte Palmer, 2 HiU (S. C.) 351 ; Eq. 315, 317. Thurston v. Dickinson, 2 Rich. •• Parsons v. Winslow, 16 Mass. 361 ; (S. C.) Eq. 317; s.o. 46 Am. Sohier v. Eldridge, 103 "^ Dec. 56. 345, 351. Chap. XVI. §§ 612, 613.] PARTITION— FOEFEITUEE. 515 and where the life tenant has made an improvement for the benefit of himself and the remainderman or rever- sioner, and the property is subsequently sold to promote the interest of both, the life tenant is entitled to be al- lowed the value of the improvement at the time of the sale.^ Sec. 612. Partition "by tenant for life.— A tenant for life as well as for years, both in law and in equity, can com- pel a partition, but he cannot compel the reversioner or remainderman to join him, neither can he occasion a com- pulsory partition binding after the terminus of his es- tate.^ The statutes of the various states of the Union uniformly provide that partition may be made on the ap- plication of a tenant for life.^ In Indiana the owner of a life estate in a moiety of lands may compel a partition and, if necessary, a sale of such lands.'* Sec. 613. ForfeitTire of life estates.— At common law, estates for life may be forfeited because of certain acts done or omitted to be done by the tenant ;* as where the tenant undertakes to convey by feoffment and livery of seisin an estate in fee-simple,® because this act constitutes a renunciation of the feudal connection between the life tenant and his lord, and the person in remainder or re- version could enter for the forfeiture.^ At common law, if the tenant for life levied a fine or suffered a common recovery, this worked a forfeiture of his estate ; * and this ' Gambril v. Gambril, 3 Md. Ch. (Pa.) 168 ; s.c. 19Am. Dec. 633 ; 259. Ackland v. Lutley, 9 Ad. & E. ' Bool V. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 879 ; s.c. 36 Eng. C. L. 457. 119 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 285 ; « See : French v. Rollins, 21 Me. Gaskell v. Gaskell, 6 Sims. 643 ; 373 ; Austin V. Rutland R. Co., 45 Vt. Jackson exd. McCreai;. Mancius, 215 ; 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 357 ; Wills V. Slade, 6 Ves. 498 ; Redfern v. Middleton, 1 Rice (S. Baring v. Nash, 1 Ves. & B. 551. C.) L. 459. See : Doe v. Exrs. of Dungan, 8 ' See : Gil. Ten. 38 ; Ohio 87 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 432. Wright, Ten. 203. ' See ; Ackerly v. Dygert, 33 Barb. ^ Grant v. Chase, 17 Mass. 446 ; s.c. (N. Y.) 176, 189 ; 9 Am. Dec. 161 ; Van Arsdale v. Drake, 2 Barb. Stump v. Findlay, 2 Rawle (Pa.) (N. Y.) 599, 600. 168 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 632. * Shaw V. Beers, 84 Ind. 538. See : Salmon v. Clagett, 8 Bland, s 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 351 ; Ch. (Md.) 135, 173 ; 2 Bl. Com. 374. Dawson v. Dawson, 1 Rice (S. C.) See : Stump v. Findlay, 3 Eawle L. 243 ; 516 CONVEYING IN FEE. [BOOK m. is the case whether the common recovery were valid or void.^ Sec. 614. Same— l. By conveying in fee.— The common- law doctrine respecting forfeiture of a life estate by at- tempting to convey a greater estate than the tenant held, which had its origin and reason in the feudal system, has never been adopted in this country ; ^ and there is no good reason for maintaining it under our system of govern- ment ; ^ consequently a deed of conveyance by a tenant for life purporting to convey the title in fee passes the life estate, the largest estate the tenant could lawfully grant,* but does not forfeit the estate to the reversioner or remainderman," the rule being that a deed by the ten- ant for life, purporting to give a greater estate than that of which he is seized, passes the estate that he possesses, and is void as to the residue ; ® this is on the principle that nemo dat quod non habet. A life tenant not being able to transfer more or a greater estate than he has,' it follows that a conveyance by a life tenant in fee will not affect remainders, though in form contingent.* In a case where the husband becomes seized of an estate by the curtesy, and during the life of his wife assumes to con- vey the fee of the land, and puts his grantee in posses- sion, the conveyance of the husband is a vaM transfer Pelham's Case, 1 Co. 15 ; Quimby v. DUl, 40 Me. 528 ; Stump V. Findlay, 3 Eawle (Pa.) Griffin v. FeUows, 81* Pa. St. 114 ; 108; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 633, 637. McKee v. Pfout, 3 U. S. (3 Dal.) ' Smith V. Packhurst, 3 Atk. 135. 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690. ' It seems that in some of the or- ' See : Rogers v. Moore, 11 Conn. iginal thu'teen states convey- 553, 557 ; ance by feoffment, with Ht ery Robinson v. Miller, 1 B. Mon. to seizment, worked forfeiture. (Ky.) 88, 94 ; See : Grout v. Townsend, 3 Hill Quimby v. Dill, 40 Me. 528 ; (N. Y.) 554 ; Griffin v. FeUows, 81* Pa. St. 114 ; Jackson ex d. MoCrea V. Manoius, McKee w. Pfout, 3 U. S. (3Dal.) 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357 ; 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690. Pendleton v. Vandevier, 1 Wash. ^ Cai-penter v. Denoon, 29 Ohio St. (Va.) 381. 379. 'Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio "McCorryi;. King's Heirs,3Humnh. St. 584, 590 ; (Tenn.) 367 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. Carpenter v. Denoon, 39 Ohio St. 165. 379, 398. 1 Davis v. Whitesides, 1 Bibb (Ky.) See: Rogers v. Moore, 11 Conn. 510, 513; 553 ; Jackson ex d. McCrea v. Mancius, Martin v. Sterling, 1 Root (Conn.) 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 537 ; 310; Pendleton v. Vandevier, 1 Wash. Robinson v. Miller, 1 B. Mon. (Va.) 881. (Ky.) 88, 94 ; « Smith v. Cooper, 59 Ala. 494. Chap. XVI. § 615.] ADVERSE POSSESSION. 517 to the extent of his estate,^ and if he survives his wife the statute of hmitations does not commence to run against her heirs until the termination of his hfe estate.^ Sec. 615. Same. — 2. By adverse possession. — A tenant for life may forfeit his estate by permitting an adverse pos- session thereon for the statutory period, in which case he can neither recover the land himself nor by transfer of his claim enable any one else to do so before the ter- mination of his life estate, because adverse possession for the period prescribed by the statute of limitations gives a perfect title.^ ' Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio St. 584, 589. ' See : Van Arsdall v. Fauntelroy, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio St. 584, 589 ; Denny v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St. 576, 578 ; Carpenter v. Denoon, 39 Ohio St. 398; aark V. Clark, 30 Ohio St. 138 ; Lessee of Thompson v. Green, 4 Ohio St. 217 ; Lessee of Borland v. Marshall, 3 Ohio St. 308 ; Lessee of Canby v. Porter, 12 Ohio 81 ; King V. NutaU, 7 Baxt. (Tenn. 231, 326 ; GiUespie v. Worford, 2 Caldw (Tenn.) 641. ' Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 360 ; s.c 73 Am. Dec. 639 ; Hole ■;;. Rittenhouse, 19 Pa. St. 306; Pederick v. Searle, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 236, 240 ; Watson V. Gregg, 10 Watts (Pa.) 395 ; s.c. 36 Am. Deo. 176. See : Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ; s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 351 ; Moody V. Fleming, 4Ga. 115 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 210 ; Fitzhugh V. Crighan, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 439 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 139 ; Trotter v. Cassady, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 365; s.c. 13 Am. Deo. 183; Taylor v. Buckner, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 18 ; s.c. 12 Am. Dec. 354 ; Webbs V. Hynes, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 388; s.c. 50 Am. Deo. 515; Berthelemy v. Johnson, 3 B. Mon, (Ky.) 90 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 179 ; School District v. Benson, 31 Me. 381 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 618 ; Stump V. Henry, 6 Md. 201 ; s.c. 61 Am. Deo. 300 ; Alexander v. Walter, 8 GUI (Md.) 239 ; s.c. 50 Am. Deo. 688 ; Jackson v. Pixley, 63 Mass. (9 Cush.)490; s.c.57 Am.Dec. 64; Stevenson's Heirs v. McReary, 30 Miss. (13 Smed. & M.) 9 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec. 102 ; Strimpfler v. Roberts, 18 Pa. St. 283 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 606 ; Brown v. McKinney, 9 Watts (Pa.) 565 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 139 ; University of Vermont i\ Rey- nold's Exrs., 3 Vt. 543 ; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 234. The qaestion of adverse possession is one for the jury and not for the court. Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ; s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 351, 356 ; Graham r. Cammamm, 3 Cai. (N. Y.) 168, 169 ; Foot V. Wiswall, 14 John. (N. Y.) 304, 307 ; Jackson v. Wood, 13 John. (N. Y.) 242 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 315 ; Springstein i\ Schermerhorn, 12 John. (N. Y.) 357 ; Jackson ex d. Gillespy ■«. Woolsey, 11 John. (N. Y.) 446 ; Jackson v. McCaU, 10 John. (N. Y.) 377, 380 ; s.c.6 Am.Deo.343 ; Smith d. Teller v. Lorillard, 10 John. (N. Y.) 338 ; Jackson v. Price, 10 John. (N. Y.) 414, 417 ; Doe ex d. Clinton v. Campbell, 10 John. (N. Y.) 475 ; 518 VALUE OF LIFE ESTATE. [BOOK III. Sec. 616. Same— 3. By waste.— The forfeit of a life estate by permissive waste is a matter that will be fully dis- cussed later on in section seven of this chapter. Sec. 617. Valuation of life estate.— It is sometimes im- portant to ascertain the value of a life estate, to the end that the proceeds arising from the sale of the land to which the life estate attaches may be divided equitably between the life tenant and the remainderman, or that an incumbrance or burden upon the land may be prop- erly apportioned. 1 While it is impossible to ascertain the absolute value of the life estate until after the death of the life tenant, yet that value can be approximated by taking into consideration all the contingencies and surrounding circumstances. Sec. 618. Same— English, rule.— The ascertaining and fix- ing of the value of a life estate came before the English Court of Chancery at an early date, and they valued the life estate at one-third and the remainder at two-thirds of the fee.2 This rule was adhered to by that court until the year 1T18,^ with the single exception of James v. Hales,* in which case a decree apportioning the burden of paying off an incumbrance directed that the life tenant pay two-fifths and the remainderman three-fifths of the amount. These were purely arbitrary rules formed Smith d. Teller v. Burtis, 9 John. Dunlop v. Ball, 6 TJ. S. (3 Or.) (N. Y.) 174 ; 180, 184 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 246, 248 ; Jackson ex d. Jadwin v. Joy, 9 Etting v. Bank of the United John. (N. Y.) 102 ; States, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat.) 59, Frier v. Jackson ex d. Van Allen, 75 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 419, 422 ; 8 John. (N. Y.) 490 ; Bright v. Eynon, 1 Burr. 397 ; Jackson ex d. Stoutenburgh v. Doe d. Fishar v. Prosser, 1 Cowp. Murray, 7 John. (N. Y.) 5 ; 217 ; Van Gordon v. Jackson, 5 John. Mayor of Kingston v. Horner, 1 (N. Y.) 440, 467 ; Cowp. 103. Jackson ex d. Jones v. Striker, 1 ' See : Ante, § 606. John. Gas. (N. Y.) 284, 289 ; « Rowel v. Walley, 1 Gh. Eep. 219. Wallace v. Duffield, 2 Serg. & R. » See : Gornish v. Mew, 1 Gas. Gh. (Pa.) 527 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 660 ; 271 ; Brenton v. Gannon, 1 Bay (S. G.) Flud v. Flud, Freem. Gh. 210 ; 483 ; Ballet v. Sprainger, Free. Gh. 62 ; Armstrong v. Toler, 24 U. S. (11 Lock v. Lock, 2 Vem, 666 ; Wheat.) 258, 267 ; bk. 6 L. ed. Thynn v. DuvaU, 3 Vem. 117 ; 468, 471 ; Glyat v. Batteson. 1 Vern. 404 ; Hinde's Lessee v. Longworth, 24 Brent v. Best, 1 Vem. 69. U. S. (11 Wheat.) 199, 209 ; bk. ^2 Vem. 267. 6 L. ed. 454, 456 ; Chap. XVI. § 619.] VALUE— AMERICAN RULE, 519 without taking into consideration the condition and health of the life tenant and other circumstances which would affect the tenant and value of the life estate. A rule based upon the probability of the life tenant was formulated in the case of Freemoult v. Dedire/ which was followed until the year 1879, when the one-third rule was put aside as unjust and most absurd. ^ The present rule is greatly aided by the use of the standard life tables.^ Sec. 619. Same— American rule.— The courts of this country have resorted to various methods by which to determine the value of a life estate/ but the prevailing rule requires that regard must be had to all the sur- roundings and circumstances of the case in estimating the value of a life estate ; such as the age, health, and habits of the life tenant, the rental value of the land, and the probable amount of taxes and cost of repairs.^ One trouble attending the ascertaining of the value of the life ' 1 Pr. Wms. 429. ■' White V. White, 4 Ves. 24, 32 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 161, 169 ; Nightingale v. Lawson, 1 Bro. C. C. 440. 3 See : Stone v. Theed, 3 Bro. C. C. 243; Heathcote v. Paignon, 2 Bro. C. C. 167 ; Griffith V. Spratley, 1 Cox 389 ; Penrhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 107 ; White V. White, 4 Ves. 24 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 161. * Seven years' rule. — In an early South CaroUna case the court declared a life estate to be worth seven years' purchase, and to arrive at its value, directed the inter- est to be computed on the value of the whole fee for seven years, and said that interest on the several sums of annual in- terest from the time the estima- tion was made should be de- ducted ; and with the rate of interest at seven per cent., that the present value of an estate for life is a fraction more than thirty-five per cent, of the value of the absolute estate. See : Garland v. Executors of Crow, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 24. Probabilities rule. — In the early Maryland cases the court took into consideration the probabil- ities and Iiad regard for the age and health of the widow as in- gredients in fixing the valua- tion of her life estate. Cassanave v. Brooke, 3 Bland. Ch. (Md.) 267, note ; Greenwood v. Clarke, 3 Bland. Ch. (Md). 268, note. Sliding scale valuxtion. — In some of the states, as in Maryland, a sliding scale of valuation in life estates has been adopted by the courts varying from the case of a healthy person under 30 years of age, whose estate is valued at half of the fee, to that of a liealthy person over 77, whose estate is valued at three- twentieths of the fee. See : Williams' Case, 3 Bland. Ch. (Md.) 186, 331. ' Sagar v. Eckert, B 111. App. 413 : Greer v. Mayor of New York, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) N. S. 206 ; Swaine v. Ferine, 5 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 482 ; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 318; Gunning v. Carman, 3 Redf. (N. Y.) 69 ; Jones 1'. Sherrard, 2 Dev. & B. (N. C.) Eq. 179 ; Shippen's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 391 ; Carnes v. Polk, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 244. 520 MERGER OF LIFE ESTATE. [Book III. estate is the fluctuation in the price of land ^ and the unauthoritativeness of the mortality tables. In fixing the valuation of an estate the value should be taken as at the time when the burden fell upon the estate, or the land was sold. Sec. 620. Merger of life estates.— An estate for life is subject to merger in the inheritance. This merger takes place whenever the life estate and the inheritance unite in one and the same person in the same rank, without any intermediate estate.^ This rule at law is inflexible ; but where the interest of the parties, or the rights of strangers, not parties to the act that would otherwise work an extinguishment of the particular estate, require it, the estate will still have a separate continuance in contemplation of law.^ Merger is not favored in equity, and will not take place where the continuance of the life estate is necessary to the protection of the owners of the inheritance, though there would be a merger in law.* The question is usually regarded in equity as de- pending on the intention of the parties in whom the interests are united. An intention to merger will not be presumed in the absence of evidence, if such merger is against the interest of the party owing the inheritance. *" When a tenant for life acquires the absolute property or inheritance of the lands to which the life estate attaches, his estate becomes merged or drowned in the ' See : Atkins v. Kron, 8 Ired. (N. Champney v. Coope, 32 N. Y. C.) Eq. 1 ; 543 ; Sagar v. Eckert, 3 111. App. 413 ; Skeel v. Spraker, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Greer v. Mayor of New York, 1 Y.) 182 ; Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 206 ; Millspaugh v. McBride, 7 Paige Gunning v. Cannon, 3 Redf. (N. Ch. (N. Y.) 509 ; Y.) 69 ; Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 260 ; Shippen's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 391. s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 629. ' Allen V. Anderson, 44 Ind. 395 ; •• Dougherty v. Jack, 5 Watts (Pa.) Fox V. Long, 8 Bush (Ky.) 551 ; 456 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 335. James v. Moorey, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) ^ Huston v. Wickersham, 8 Watts 246 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 475 ; (Pa.) 523 ; Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 260 ; Dougherty v. Jack, 5 Watts (Pa.) s.c. 72 Am. Deo. 629 ; 456 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 335 ; Pratt V. Bank of Bennington, 10 Penington v. Coats, 6 Whart. Vt. 293 ; s.c. 33 Am. Deo. 201. (Pa.) 283 ; « Huebsch v. Scheel, 81 111. 281 ; Helmbold v. Man, 4 Whart. (Pa.) Edgarton v. Young, 43 111. 464 ; 423 ; Purdy tK Huntington, 42 N. Y. Richards v. Ayers, 1 Watts & S, 384 ; (Pa.) 485, 487. Bascom v. Smith, 34 N, Y. 820 ; Chap. XVI. §§ 621-623.] TERMINATION OF ESTATE. 521 fee-simple ; ^ and where the remainderman acquires, by lease or otherwise, the preceding life estate, the life estate is merged in the inheritance, and he becomes the absolute owner in fee.^ Sec. 621. Same— Estates pur autre vie.— An estate pur autre vie ^ is also subject to merger in an estate for a man's own life, the latter being to him the more valuable, and in legal contemplation the greater estate. Thus where an estate is limited to a person for the life of another, with remainderman to himself for his own life, the first estate is merged.* Sec. 622. Termination of life estate.— An estate for life in this country terminates only with the natural death of the person,^ there being no such thing in this country as the civil death of the English law. Monastic seclusion does not exist in this country, bills of attainder are prohibited by the constitution, and no crime works corruption of blood or the forfeiture of an estate.^ Sec. 623. Same— Exception to the rule.— While a life estate will, generally speaking, endure as long as the life for which it was granted, there are cases where estates for life may determine upon future contingencies, before the life for which they are created expires.^ Thus where an estate is granted to another so long as certain salt- works shall be maintained thereon,^ or as long as the grantee shall keep a furnace and buildings on the laud," or until the rents and profits shall discharge certain claims,^" or to a widow durante vididtate,^^ or to a man and woman during coverture, ^^ or as long as they shall ' 1 Co. iBst. 338b. » Hui-d v. Cushing, 24 Mass. (7 ' Pynchon v. Steams, 52 Mass. (11 Pick.) 169, 174. Met.) 312 ; s. c. 45 Am. Dec. 210. « Cook v. Bisbee, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 3 See : Post, section III. of this 527. chapter. '" People ex rel. Norton v. Gillis, 24 ^ Bowles' Case, 11 Co. 88b ; Weud. (N. Y.) 201 ; Abbot of Bury v. Bokenham, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; Dyer 7, 10b. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26. ^ WiUiams v. Gaston, 1 Strobh. (S. " Eoseboomv. VanVechten,5Den. C.) L. 130. (N. Y.) 414, 424. «See: "Walker Am. Law (9th ed.) '^ Jackson u. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.) 326. 888 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 504. ' 2 Bl. Com. 121. 522 PRESUMPTION OF DEATH. [Book III. live in a certain house ; ' in all of which cases the grantee takes an estate for life, determinable upon the happening of the event on which the contingency is made to de- pend.^ Sec. 624. Same— Presumption of death.— A presumption of the death of the person to whom an estate is granted for life arises from the absence of the person from the state, without being heard from, for seven years.^ Such absence merely furnishes ground for presuming the party to be dead, and absence for a shorter period is not suffi- cient to raise that presumption.* The only presumption arising from such absence is that the party is dead, if he has not been heard of in seven years ; not that he died at any time within the seven years, not even on the last day ; ® the time of the death, whenever a material matter, is a fact subject to distinct proof. ^ A mere fail- ' Jackson v. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.) 388 ; S.C. 3 Am. Dec. 504. = 3 Bl. Com. 121 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26. ' Ashbury v. Sanders, 8 Cala. 62 ; s.c. 68 Am. Dec. 300 ; Rockland v. Morrill, 71 Me. 457 ; Stevens v. McNamara, 36 Me. 176; s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 740 ; Commonwealth v. Thompson, 88 Mass. (6 Allen) 591 ; Loring v. Steineman, 42 Mass. (1 Met.) 204, 311 ; Newman v. Jenkins, 37 Mass. (10 Pick.) 515 ; McCartee v. Campbell, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 455 ; Lewis V. Mobely, 4 Dev. & B. (N. C.) L. 323 ; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 379; State exrel. Spencer v. Moore, 11 Ired. (N. C.) L. 160 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 401 ; Hershey v. Shank, 58 Pa. St. 382, 385; Holmes v. Johnson, 43 Pa. St. 159, 164; Miller v. Bates, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 490 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo. 658 ; Burr V. Sim, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 150 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 50. Civil and canon law mle. — ITrider the civil law death is never pre- sumed from mere absence, be- cause an absentee is presumed to live until the contrary is proved, or until he has attained the age of one hundred years ; that is to say, the most remote period of the ordinary life of man. Hayes ■«. -Berwick, 3 Mart. (La.) 138 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 727 ; 1 Denisart 13, " Verbo Absens." The same rule prevailed by the canon law. Whart. Confl. L., § 133. Hall V. Commonwealth, Hard. (Ky.) 479 ; SpuiT V. Taimble, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 278 ; Newman v. Jenkins, 27 Mass. (10 Pick.) 515 ; Wainbourgh i\ Schank, 3 N. J. L. (1 Penn.) 329 ; MoCombe v. Wight, 5 John Ch. (N. Y.) 263 ; Innis V. Campbell, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 373 • Wood's V. Woods, 3 Bay (S. C.)L. 476; Batin v. Bigelow, 1 Pet. C. C. 452; Doe d. Kjiightu Nepean, 5Barn. & Ad. 86 ; B.C. 37 Eng. C. L. 45. ' McCartee v. Camel, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 455, 463 ; State ex rel. Spencer v. Moore, 11 Ired. (N. C.) L. 160 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 401. « Smith V. Sniith, 49 Ala. 156 ; Chap. XVI. § 625.] PUR AUTRE VIE ESTATES 523 ure to hear from an absent person for seven years, where such person is known to have a fixed place of residence abroad, is not sufficient to raise the presumption of his death, unless due inquiry has been made at his place of residence abroad without getting information respecting him.^ Section III. — Estates Puk Autre Vie. Definition of the estate. Quantum of the estate. Nature of interest in tlie estate. Methods by which estate created. Riglits of tenants — Alienation, devise, and entail. Same — Right to estovers. Occupancy — 1. Corporeal hereditaments — a. General occu- pancy. Same — Same — Same — Abolition by statute. Same — Same — b. Special occupancy. Same — Same — Same — Who may be special occupants. Same — 2. Incorporeal hereditaments. Termination of estate. Section' 625. Deflnition of the estate.— An estate for life is granted either for a person's own life or for the life or lives of another person or persons. Where the estate is held for the life of another person it is technically called an estate J3ur autre vie, ^ and the person for whose life 3IcDowell i: Simpson, 1 Houst. Spencer v. Roper, 13 Ired. (N. C.) (Del.) 467 ; L. 333 ; Doe V. Flanagan, 1 Ga. 538 ; State ex rel. Spencer v. Moore, 11 Whiting V. NichoU, 46 111.230, Ired. (N. C.) L. 160; s.c. 53Am. 234 ; ■ Dec. 401 ; Spurr V. Taimble, 1 A. K. Marsh. Gibbes v. Vincent, It Rich. (S. C.) (Ky.) 278 ; L. 333 ; Stevens v. McNamara, 36 Me. 170; Primm v. Stewart, 7 Tex. 178; s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 740 ; Davie r. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628 ; bk. Flynn v. Coffee, 94 Mass. (13 Allen) 24 L. ed. 1086 ; 133 ; Montgomery v. Bevans, 1 Sawy. Loring v. Steineman, 42 Mass. D. C. 653. - (1 Met.) 204 ; ^ Wentworth v. Wenfrsvorth, 71 Me. Lancaster v. Washington Life In- 74 ; surance Company, 62 Mo. 131 ; Stevens v. McNamara, 36 Me. 176; Hancock v. American Life In- s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 740. surance Company, 62 Mo. 26 ; ^2 BI. Com. 120, 359 ; Smith V. Knowlton, 11 N. H. 191; Belts' Sup. to Ves. Sr., vol. II., p. McCartee v. Camel, 1 Barb. Ch. 41 ; (N. y.) 455 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; Stouvenel v. Stephens, 3 Daly 10 Viner Abr. 296. (N. Y.) 319; Sec. 635. Sec. 636. Sec. 637. Sec. 628. Sec. 639. Sec. 630. Sec. 631. Sec. 632. Sec. 633. Sec. 634. Sec. 635. Sec. 636. 524 NATURE OF INTEREST. [Book III. the estate is granted is technically called the cestui que vie. ^ This estate is derived from the estate for Uf e by being signed over to another person ; and though it probably arose from, or was suggested by, the assignment of the estate for life, at common law it did not necessarily arise by assignment, but admitted of being created de novo by express limitation. This estate is terminated by the death of the cestui que vie, and not by that of the grantee or donee. At common law where an instrument creating an estate did not provide for the disposition of the estate in case of the death of the tenant before the cestui que vie, the remaining portion of the term did not descend to the heir or personal representative, but to the first taker, to the exclusion not only of such heir and personal representative but also of the remainderman. ^ Such estates were frequent under the common law, but are seldom met with in this country. Now and then, however, a case occurs where a tenant for life disposes of his estate for the full remainder of his term. Sec. 626. Quantum of the estate.— As regards the quantum of estates pur autre vie they may be limited to endure — 1. During the life of a single person ; 2. During the joint lives of several persons ; or 3. During the life of the longest liver of several persons. Sec. 627. Nature of interest in the estate.— Estatespwr autre vie are regarded as the lowest estates of freehold, not of inheritance, a man can have, being estimated of less value than estates for a man's own life,^ because of the possibility one man may have of outliving another. An estate pwr autre vie has been said to be a descendible estate, but this is questioned by Chancellor Kent.* The estate is merely a freehold interest suh modo, or for cer- tain purposes, and partakes of the nature of personal ' 3 Bl. Com 258 259 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26. See : Post, §§631-633. ^ See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 37. ^2 Bl. Com. 130 ; . \ / Chap. XVI. §§ 628, 629.] RIGHTS OF TENANTS. 525 estates in all other respects.^ In some of the states, as in New York,^ estates pwr mitre vie, whether limited to heirs or otherwise, are admitted to be freeholds only during the life of the grantee or devisee, and after his death are regarded and treated as chattels real.^ Sec. 638. Methods by which estate created.— An estate 2)ur autre vie may be created in three different ways, to wit : (1) By express limitation either to a grantee or de- visee simply during the life of the cestui que vie, or to a grantee or devisee and his heirs during such life ; (2) by an assignment to another person of an existing estate for life, whether there is an express limitation either to the grantee simply, or to him and his heirs during the life of the cestui que vie ; or (3) by operation of law, as under the common law where an estate for the term of the life of an attainted traitor, who was entitled to an estate for his own life, was by forfeiture cast upon the king, or where a limitation was simply to a man during the life of the cestui que vie, upon the death of such tenant the possession was cast upon the general occu- pant,* as is hereinafter most specifically pointed out.^ Sec. 629. Eights of tenants— Alienation, devise, and en- tail.— At common law a tenant pur autre vie had an ab- solute right to alienate inter vivos, whether his heir was entitled as special occupant or not, and if the heir was entitled as special occupant, the estate of the assignee was not affected by the death of the assignor ; ^ but such tenant could not devise the property by will, and if he attempted to do so the heirs of his body took as special occupants, by virtue of the gift that created the life estate, in preference to the devisee of such tenant.^ Neither could an estate i^ur autre vie be entailed by ' Mosher v. Yost, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) " See : Challis' Real Prop. 286. 277 ; =• See : Post, % 630. Doe V. Laxton, 6 Durnf . & E. (6 T. « Challis' Real Prop. 290. R.) 289. ^ See : Dillon v. Dillon, 1 Ball & B. « N. Y. Rev. St. (8th ed.) 2431, 8 6; 95 ; 3Rev. St., Codes &L. 2526, §73. Allen v. Allen, 2 Dreu. & W. 307 ; See : Reynolds v. Collin, 3 Hill Gray v. Mannock, 3 Edn. 341 ; (N. Y.) 441. 442. Campbell v. Sandys, 1 Sch. & 8 Reynolds v. Collin, 3 Hill (N. Y.) Lef. (Irish) 281. 441, 442. 526 ESTOVERS— OCCUPANCY. [Book III. virtue of the statute De Donis, not being a heredita- ment ; ^ but such estates are susceptible of limitation in the nature of a quasi entail, which, if not destroyed by the act of some quasi tenant in tail, give rise to a quasi descent resembling the descent of an estate-tail.^ Sec. 630. Same— Right to estovers. — At common law every tenant pur autre vie had the same right to estovers as a tenant for his own life ; ^ but such tenant holding under a settlement had no rights of usurer, or power to deal with the land, other than those possessed by the lessee pur autre vie holding merely under a lease of rent.* Sec. 631. Oceupaney — 1. Corporeal hereditaments — a. Gen- eral occupancy.— By the common law, where a tenant pur autre vie died during the life of the cestui que vie, the estate did not go to his executors, because it was a freehold and not a chattel interest ; it did not descend to his heir, be- cause the estate was not one of inheritance ; and it did not go to the reversioner, because the previous estate had not yet expired. Consequently the first person who entered on the land, after the death of the tenant, might laMffully retain the possession thereof as long as the cestui que vie lived, by right of occupancy. Such a tenant was called a "general occupant."^ Where the king had the reversion, however, the right of occupancy was not allowed ; for if the king's title and a subject's concurred, the king was always preferred against the subject, and for that reason there could be no prior occupant.^ Sec. 632. Same— Same— Same— Abolition by statute.— The right of general occupancy was practically abolished in England by the statutes of Charles 11.^ and of George ' See : Gray v. Mannock, 3 Edn. 339. Bridg. 484. 2 Mogg V. Mogg, 1 Mer. 654. ' 29 Char. II., c. 3, § 12, which pro- * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. vided that any estate pur autre * Chalhs' Real Prop. 386. vie shall be devisable by will, ' 2 BL Com. 258 ; and if no such devise thereof 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b ; be made, the same should be Williams' Exrs. 570. chargeable by the heir, for it * 2 Bl. Com. 259 ; shall come to him by reason of 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. special occupancy, as assets by See : Geary v. Bearcroft, O. descent, as in case of lands in Chap. XVI. § 633.1 SPECIAL OCCUPANCY. 527 II. ; ^ and the provisions of these statutes of Charles II. and George II. have been re-enacted in several of the United States. In those states where no express pro- vision is found on the subject, these estates seem to be regarded as real estate of the deceased tenant, and go in the course of distribution.^ Sec. 633. Same — Same— ta. Special occupancy. — At com- mon law the right of general occupancy could be exer- cised only where there were no persons designated in the grant who could take as special occupants. There were many cases at common law where persons became special occupants of land under circumstances growing out of the relation of such occupants to the estate, and for that reason took it to the exclusion of any general occupant or mere strangers. Thus where a grant was to a man and his heirs, or the heirs of his body during the life of another person, no general right of occupancy could arise, for the reason that the heir or heirs of the body might, and still may, on the death of the ancestor, enter and hold the possession as special occupants, having exclusive right by the term of the original contract to occupy the lands during the residue of the estate granted.^ And where the tenant pur autre vie made a lease of the estate at will, the tenant under such being in possession at the death of his lessor held as a species of special occu- pant, as against a general occupant, though he would be required to yield possession to the special occupant who was also the heir of the tenant.^ fee-simple, and in case there be no devise shall have been made no special occupant thereof, it according to the said act, or so shall go to the executors or ad- much thereof as shall not have ministrators of the party that been so devised, shall go, to be had the estate thereof by virtue applied, and distributed in the of the grant, and shall be as- same manner as the personal sets in their hands. estate of intestate." ' 14 Geo. II., c. 20, § 9, vrhich, after ^ gee : 2 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 36, 27 ; reciting the statute of Charles Walker's Am. L. (9th ed.) 275. II. above given, and that doubts ' Doe ex d. JefiEv. Robinson, 8 Bam. had arisen where no devise had & C. 296; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. been made of such estate, to 150 ; whom the surplus of such es- Atkinson v. Baker, 4 Durnf . & E. tate should belong, enacted, (4 T. R.) 229, 231 ; s.c. 2 Rev. ' ' that such estate pur autre vie. Rep. 366, 368 ; in case there be no special 2 Bl. Com. 259, 260. occupant thereof, of which * 1 Co. Litt. (lOth ed.) 41b ; 528 WHO MAY BE SPECIAL OCCUPANTS. [BOOE Uf. Sec. 634:. Same— Same — Sam.e — Who may be special occu- pants.— It is thought that although the heir of an estate pur autre vie takes as special occupant by the nomina- tion of the grantor and not by inheritance, that the heir, and not the executor or administrator, could be named as special occupant in the grant ; ■' however, if the heir and executor are both named in the grant, the heir has the special occupancy.^ Where the heirs of the body are named as special occupants in the body of the grant, the naming of them affects the quantum of the estate, which is less than the quantum of a similar estate limited to the heirs general. Thus, if a tenant for his own life makes a lease to the immediate reversioner and the heirs of his body during the life of the tenant for life, this will be no surrender.^ The possibility that there may be a failure of the heirs of the reversioner's body, by his death without issue during the lifetime of a tenant for life, gives to the latter a reversion upon his own grant, so that the last-mentioned grant is only the grant of an under-lease, which is therefore incapable of merger in the reversioner's estate.* Since the passage of the statute of frauds, the question whether personal representatives may be named as special occupants has no importance so far as freehold lands are concerned, because if there is no special occupant, such special representatives take the estate as a freehold by force of the statute.^ Sec. 635. Same— 2. Incorporeal hereditaments.— At com- mon law things which lie in grant, and of which, there- fore, no possession could be taken, there could be no Com. Dig., tit. "Estates by s.o. Carth. 376. Grant," f. 1. Before the case of Ripley i;. Went- 1 Campbell v. Sandys, 1 Sch. & worth, 7 Ves. 425, an idea that Lef. (_Ir.) 281, 389 ; personal representatives might 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b, Harg. n. be named as special occupants ^ ' seems to have appeared by way Com. Dig., tit. "Estates by only of casual surmise (3 Atk. Grant," f. 1. 466 ; 3 Ven. 719). Compare : 1 Sug. Pow. (7th ed.) In this case Lord Eldon inclined ii ■ ■'^°*®' toward the same opinion, but Atkinson v. Baker, 4 Durnf . & E. as the question was not in- ,(4 T. E ) 339, 331 ; s.c. 2 Rev. volved in the discussion, his 1 f. T. ?■ ??*'' ^^^' opinion was obiter dictum. ! ?,f ^,v *; S°^7^^'^- Siiice the passage of the statute Ohallis Real Prop. 289. of frauds, the question is purely Oldham v. Pickering, 3 Salk. 464 ; one of historical criticism. Chap. XVI. g§ 636, 637.] HOW LIFE ESTATE CREATED. 529 general occupancy ; ^ consequently an administrator could not be a special occupant of a rent, advowson, or the like,^ but of such things there might be at common law, and still may be, special occupancy.^ Sec. 636. Termination of estate. — An estate pu7' autre vie is terminated not by the death of the grantee, but by that of the cestui que vie, which may be established in the same manner as the death of a person to whom an estate is granted for his own life.* In the case of Clark V. Owens, ^ the lease was for the longest of three lives, and provided that if the lessor after reasonable search and inquiry could not find any of the lives named to continue in existence, he might re-enter after a year's notice thereof, unless the tenant should within that period pro- duce evidence of the continuance of the life before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. In discussing the question of what is evidence of the death of the cestui que vie, the court held it to be a question of fact, whether, under the circumstances, reasonable search and inquiry had been made by the lessor ; and said that reputation among the family and relatives of the person on whose life the term depended was admissible to prove his death. Section IV. — How Estates for Life Created. Sec. 637. Conventional and legal estates. Sec. 638. Estates for life by implication. Sec. 639. Creation by deed. Sec. 6iO. Same — Words of limitation. Sec. 641. Same — What creates life estate. Sec. 642. Created by devise. Sec. 643. Same — Words which carry life estate. Sec- 644. Same — Same — Raised by implication. Sec. 645. Same — Enlarging estate to a fee. Sec. 646. Same — Same — Devise with power of disposition. Sec. 647. Same — Same — Words in preamble. Section 63T. Conventional and legal estates.— Estates for ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. » Challis' Real Prop. 290. 2 Salter's Case, Cro. Eliz. 901 ; s.c. ^ See : Ante, §§ 632, 633, 624. Yelv. 9. ' 18 N. Y. 484. 34 530 ESTATE BY IBIPLICATION. [Book III. life are either conventional or legal estates ; ^ that is, they have been created either by the acts of the parties, as by deed or devised by will ; or by operation of the law, as the husband's right to curtesy, the wife's right to dower, and estates-tail after possibility of issue is extinct. Where an estate for life is created by an act of the par- ties, it arises in one of the following ways : 1. By express limitation to a grantee during his life ; 2. By the assignment of an estate pur autre vie to cestui que vie ; or 3. By implication of law. Sec. 638. Estates for life by implication.— Estates for life will arise by implication where a grant is made to a grantee by name, either in words of limitation or accom- panied by words intended to take efifect as words of lim- itation, but not in law capable of so taking effect as to Hmit any greater estate. Any conveyance otherwise capable of taking effect, which nominates a grantee, but neither limits nor purports to limit an estate, will, in the absence of any further indication, by implication of law, pass an estate for the life of the grantee ; ^ and the same is true where the limitation is " for term of life," without saying for whose life.^ In the latter case, however, an estate for the life of the grantor will pass, for he might rightfully grant such an estate, though he could not rightfully grant for the life of the grantee.* But the implication of law upon which an estate for life arises is liable to be rebutted by the manifestation of a contrary intention. Thus if the estate by implication should arise in the terms of the deed, it may be cut down by the habendum to an estate for years or at will, and this is true even though the habendum itself be techni- cally void as a limitation, and therefore not capable of taking effect otherwise than as a manifestation of intention.* Sec. 639. Creation by deed.— A life estate, being a free- > 3 Bl. Com. 120 ; ^ 1 Co. I^itt. (19th ed.) 43a. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 25.' ■■ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a, 183a. ° 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a ; 2 Id.' » See : Buckler's Case, 3 Co. 55. 182a, et seq. Chap. XVI. § 640.] BY DEED— LIMITATION. 531 hold interest in land, cannot be created or conveyed by parol, but must be by deed duly executed, or by devise.^ Such an estate may be created by express words of dis- position for the life of the grantee or devisee, or for the life of any other person, or for more lives than one.^ A life estate may also be created by a general disposition, without defining or limiting a specific estate, as where land is limited without specifying the term of duration and without words of limitation.^ Sec. 640. Same— Words of limitation.— At common law no words of limitation were necessary to create an estate for life ; because an estate granted was construed to be for the life of the grantee, unless there was an express limitation.^ In many of the states of the Union, how- ever, statutes have been passed, under which a fee passes without words of inheritance, and an intention to create an estate for life must be clearly expressed. In these states it is necessary to limit the estate for the life of the grantor in express words. By the common law under a grant of land to a man, his executors, administrators, and assigns, without the use of the word "heirs," gave to the grantee only a life estate in the premises.^ Thus 1 Stewart v. Clark, 54 Mass. (13 Session v. Donnelly, 36 N. J. L. Met.) 79, 80 ; (7 Vr.) 432 ; Garritt v. Clark, 5 Oreg. 464. Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.) ^ See : Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. 505 ; s.c. 83 Am. Deo. 237 ; & C. 221 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. Jackson ex d. Ludlow v. Meyers, 437; 3 John. (N. Y.) 388; s.c. 3 Am. 3 Bl. Com. 120 ; Dec. 504 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. Den d. Roberts v. Forsythe, 3 3 3 Bl. Com. 121 ; Dev. (N. C.) L. 26 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 25. 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474. * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; It was held in the case of Bod- 3 Bl. Com. 121. dington v. Robinson, L. R. 10 ' Clearwater v. Rose, 1 Blackf. Ex. 270 ; s.c. 14 Moak's Eng. (Ind.) 137 ; Rep. 559, that the addition to Morrall v. Sutton, 4 Beav. 478. the name of the grantee of the See : Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. words "his executors, adminis- 233 ; trators, and assigns," in the EdwardsviUe R. Co. v. Sawyer, premises of a deed, will, when 93 111. 377 ; the grantor has an estate for Merritt v. Disney, 84 Md. 344 ; his own life, expressly pass the Sedgwick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10 whole estate of the grantor to Allen) 430 ; the grantee, so as to make the Hogan's Heirs v. Welcker, 40 Mo. habendum, if purporting to 177 ; grant a less, or an impossible, Reaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 30 ; estate, void for the inconsist- ency. 532 WHAT CREATES— DEVISE. [BOOK HI. a conveyance to a man ''and his generation, to endure as long as the waters of the Delaware shall run," has been held to pass a life estate only ; ^ so also a bargain and sale of land to A, " to hold the same for A in trust for B and C, their respective heirs and assigns forever, in fee- simple," has been said to create only a life estate in A, and that at his death the legal estate reverts to the heirs of the grantor, and that B and must resort to a court of equity for an enforcement of the trust.^ Sec. 641. Same— What creates life estate.— A devise to a man simply creates but a life estate ; ^ and the same is true of a grant for an indefinite time, as one quamdiu se bene gesserit,^ or to a man and his generation as long as the water of the Delaware river shall flow ; ^ to a man and his children ; ^ to a man and his executors, admin- istrators, and assigns ; ^ to a man and his successor,^ or successors and assigns ; ^ to a husband and wife during coverture;^" or until a contingency happens. ^^ A con- veyance to a man for the use of his wife and children creates a life estate only in the wife.^^ A life estate passes by an assignment under the insolvent debtor's acts,^^ and by a quit-claim deed from one tenant in com- mon to his co-tenant.^* Sec. 642. Created by devise.— A devise of land without ' Foster v. Joice, 3 Wash. C. C. 498. « Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.) - Jackson ex d. Ludlow v. Mevers, 505 ; s.c. 82 Am. Deo. 337. 3 John. (N. Y.) 388 ; s.c. 3 Am. ' Clearwater v. Rose, 1 Blaokf. Deo. 504. (Ind.) 137 ; ' Thus in King v. Barnes, 30 Mass. Taylor v.- Chary, 39 Gratt. (Va.) (13 Pick.) 24, a deed j"-anted 448. one-half of certain property to « Wheeler v. Kirtland, 34 N. J. Eq. each, his heirs and assigns, with (9 C. E. Gr.) 552. a habendum to each, his heirs " Buffum v. Hutchinson, 83 Mass. and assigns, and then provided (1 AUen) 58 ; that, "and after my and my Miles v. Fisher, 10 Ohio 1; s.c. wife's decease, each shall have 36 Am. Dec. 61 ; the other half ; " and the court 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 6. held that each took a life estate '» 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a. in the last mentioned half, " Id. which would not be enlarged '^ White v. Williamson, 3 Grant by construction to a fee. by the (Pa.) 349. fact that the first half was " Verdier v. Youngblood, 1 Rich. granted in fee. (S. C.) Eq. 330 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56a. 417. ' Foster v. Joice, 3 Wash. C. C. " McKinney v. Stocks, 6 Heisk. 498. (Tenn.) 284. Chap. XVI. § 643.]. WORDS CARRYING LIFE ESTATE. 533 words of perpetuity, where there is nothing in the will from which a fee can be raised by implication/ vests only a life estate in the devisee,^ for we have, already seen ^ that the general rule of law is that a devise of real estate, without words of limitation superadded, passes simply a life estate. No technical words are necessary.* Thus the word "heirs" is not required, as in a deed,^ and if used may be read in another sense as ' ' children, " ^ or sons "7 Sec. 643. Same— Words which carry life estate.— A devise to a person and his heirs, and in the event of his dying without heirs, then over, creates a life estate.* It has been held that a devise to a person and his children, there being a child or children living at the time of the devise, creates a life estate in the devisee with remainder in fee in the living children and such children as he raay subse- quently have born unto him.^ A devise to a husband and wife and the survivor, the estate being subject to be ' See : Ante, 8 638. ? Jackson ex d. Newkirk v. Embler, 14 John. (N. Y.) 198 ; Jackson v. WeUs, 9 John. (N. Y.) 223 * Fox V. Phelps, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 437, 445 ; Barheydt v. Barheydt, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 576, 580 ; Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 252 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 48 ; Witherspoon v. Dunlop, 1 McC. (S. C.) 546 ; Denn v. Gaines, Cowp. 657 ; Doe V. Allen, 8 Durnf. & E. (8 T. R.) 497, 502, 508 ; Frogmorton v. Wright, 3 Wills. 414. ' See : Ante. § 349. '■•Fox V. Phelps, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 437, 445. = See : Ante, % 350. « Bunnell v. Evans, 26 Ohio St. 409. ' Lyles V. Diggie's Lessee, 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 364. *> Wilson V. O'Connell, 147 Mass. 17 ; Jones Exrs. v. Stiles, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E. Gr.) 324 ; Harris v. Potts, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 141; Hill V. Thomas, 11 S. C. 346. See : Jones v. Barmbelt, 2 111.276 ; Non-is V. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 273 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 615. Devise of an improvement, followed by a devise over, carries a life estate only. Bowers v. Porter, 21 Mass. (4 Pick.) 198. See : WUmarth v. Bridges, 113 Mass. 407. Intention to create an estate for life. — Where deducible from the expressions in the will, the es- tate cannot be enlarged by con- struction, although it be bur- dened with payments or duties. Bowers v. Porter, 21 Mass. (4 Pick.) 198, 203 ; Moor V. Denn, 2 Bos. & P. 247. Devise over after a precedent life estate does not necessarily carry the fee ; thus it has been said that the devise of a plantation to a person subject to the life estate of the devisee's mother will secure the devisee a life estate only. Calhoun v. Cook, 9 Pa. St. 226. " Hannah v. Osborn, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 336 ; Reeder v. Shearman, 6 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 88. 534 EAISED BY IMPLICATION. [BOOK III. divided equally among their children, and in the default of children, then over, carries a life estate ; ^ a devise to a wife "forever and during her life" carries only a life estate ; ^ a devise to a wife and children creates a life es- tate in the wife with remainder to the children, rather than a joint estate in all of them ; ^ a devise to a wife for life, coupled with a power of sale, with remainder over to children, creates in the wife only a life estate ; * a de- vise to a designated person, with a provision that in case he die before his wife, the estate shall return to the lega- . tees of the grantor, but if he survives his wife, then the estate shall be his in fee, creates but a life estate in the devisee.^ A devise declaring "I lend "to a designated devisee described premises, and in case the devisee shall arrive at manhood and beget heirs lawfully, then to him and his heirs forever, otherwise over, gives a life estate only.^ A devise of the right to occupy, possess, or enjoy lands for life gives a life estate.'' A devise giving the right to occupy and enjoy lands for an indefinite length of time, at the option of the devisee, confers a life estate.* In those states where fee-tails have been converted into estates for life in the first taken in tail by statute, a devise of an estate in tail gives a life estate with remain- der over.^ Sec. 644. Same— Same— Raised by implication.- A life es- tate may be raised by implication without words of direct ' Self's Admr. •;;. Tune, 6 Munf. Areson v. Areson, 3 Den. (N. Y.) (Va.)470. 458; - Sheafe v. Gushing, 17 N. H. 508. Patrick v. Morehead, 85 N. C. 3 Koenig v. Kraft, 87 Ky. 95 ; s.c. 63 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 684 ; 13 Am. St. Rep. 463 ; 7 S. W. Oyster v. Oyster, 100 Pa. St. 538 ; Rep. 633 ; 9 Ky. L. Rep. 945. s.c. 45 Am. Rep. 388. See : Foster v. Shreve, 6 Bush ' Den v. Crawford, 8 N. J. L. (3 (Ky.) 519 ; Halst.) 90. Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Phila. « Dougherty v. Moriett's Lessee. 5 (Pa.) 553 ; Gill & J. (Md.) 459. In re Hanis, L. R. 7 Ex. 344 ; ' See : Kearney v. Kearney, 17 N. J. French v. French, 11 Sim. 356. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; Id. 504 ; * Whitmore v. Russell, 80 Me. 397 ; Winsthofl v. Dracourt, 3 Watts s.c. 6 Am. St. Rep. 300. (Pa.) 340. See : Green v. Hewitt, C7 lU. 113 ; » See : Succession of Law, 31 La. s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 103 ; An. 456 ; Stuart V. Walker, 73 Me. 146 ; s.c. Piper's Estate, 3 W. N. C. 711, 39 Am. Rep. 311 ; « Balir v. Van Blarcum, 71 111. 390 ; Copeland v. Barron, 73 Me. 306 ; Chiles v. Bartleson, 31 Mo. 344. Warren v. Webb, 68 Me. 133 ; Chap. XVI. g§ 645, 646.] ENLARGING LIFE ESTATE. 535 gift. Thus it has been held that a devise, "after my death and the death of my wife I give B," etc., creates a Ufe estate in the land in the wife in case she survives the testator ; ^ and the same is true of a devise of land to be divided equally among the children of a designated per- son, he to enjoy the benefit while he lives.^ Sec. 645. Same — Enlarging estate to a fee.^— Where the will contains some provision inconsistent with an estate for life only, the estate granted will be enlarged to a fee ; * but where the intention to create a life estate is deducible from the expressions of the will, the estate can- not be enlarged by construction,^ although it is burdened with payments or duties ; ® and an express devise for life will not be enlarged to a fee by a charge upon the prem- ises.^ A devise of lands in words restraining the devisee from encumbering or selling, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intention in the face of the will, conveys but a life estate ; and will not be raised by construction to a fee.^ A direction that land devised be equally divided among designated persons will not be enlarged by construction to more than a life estate.^ In those states where, by reason of statute or otherwise, it is held that words of perpetuity are not necessary to carry a fee in a devise, where a fee is given by implication, it will not by construction be enlarged to a fee without such words. ^^ Sec. 646. Same — Same— Devise with power of disposition. — We have already discussed the effect of a devise with ' Baxrjv. Shelby, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.) And this is true even where there 339. is a provision for the descent 2 Haskins v. Tate, 25 Pa. St. 249. of the land to children. ^ For a fuU discussion of the enlarge- O'Byme v. Feeley, 61 Ga. 77. ment of a devise, see : Ante, ' Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61. §§ 368-385, 573. " To be equally divided" goes to the ' Wheaton v. Andress, 23 Wend. quality and not to the limita- (N. Y.) 453. tion of the estate. '■ See : Pickering v. Langdon, 23 Jackson ex d. Hunt v. Luquiere, Me. 413 ; 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 231 ; McLeUan v. Turner, 15 Me. 436. Jackson v. Ball, 10 John. (N. Y.) « Bowers v. Porter, 21 Mass. (4 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 821 ; Pick.) 198; Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 13 Moor V. Denn, 3 Bos. & P. 347. Wend. (N. Y.) 578. ' Moore v. Dimond, 11 R. I. 131. Fuller v. Tates, 8 Paige Ch. (N.Y.) 8 Grim's Appeal, 1 Grant (Pa.) 309. 335, 331. 536 WORDS IN PREAMBLE. [Book III. power of disposition,^ and its effect to raise the estate granted to a fee ; but where a devise is in terms for life, with power of disposition, the estate will not become a fee in the hands of the devisee,^ and on failure to exer- cise the power, reverts to the heirs of the donor on the death of the devisee.^ Sec. 647. Same — Same — Words in preamble. — We have already seen * that the words of the preamble may be re- sorted to in order to ascertain the intention of a testator, but the words of the preamble are never allowed to so con- trol the words of a devise as to convert a plain life estate into a fee-simple.^ Words in the preamble of a will, showing an intention to dispose of the whole estate of the testator, will not enlarge a life estate to a fee unless there is some connection between the preamble and the devising clause of the will ; ® and it is well settled that a general intent to dispose of the whole of the property cannot authorize a court to destroy or disregard an ex- pressed intent to give a life estate only.^ ' See : Ante, § 359. Vanderzee v. Vanderzee, 31 N. •^ McLellan v. Turner, 15 Me. 436. Y. 331 ; s.c. 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 3 Benson v. Mitchell, 26 Ala. 360 ; 331. Fairmon v. Beal, 14 111. 244 ; See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. 239 ; Denning v. Van Dusen, 47 Ind. Beall v. Holmes, 6 Har. & J. 243 ; (Md.) 210 ; Frasur v. Hurey, 43 Ind. 310 ; Hogan v. Andrews, 23 Wend. Collins V. Carlisle's Heirs, 7 B. (N. Y.) 452 ; Mon. (Ky.) 13 ; Barheydt v. Barlieydt, 20 Wend. Show V. Hussey, 41 Me. 495 ; (N. Y.) 576 ; Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 31 Me. Fox v. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 388; 393; Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ; Jackson ex d. Harris v. Harris, Cummings v. Show, 108 Mass. 8 John. (N. Y.) 141 ; 159 ; Harvey v. Olmstead, 1 N. Y. 483; Hale V. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468 ; s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 103 ; Stevens v. Winslop, 18 Mass. (1 Rupp v. Eberly, 73 Pa. St. 141 ; Pick.) 318 ; Mclntyre ^.Ramsey, 28 Pa.St.317; Andrews v. Brumfield, 32 Miss. Cassell v. Coake, 8 Serg. & R. 107; (Pa.) 368; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. Rail V. Dotson, 22 Miss. (14Smed. 610 ; & M.) 176 ; Leppitt v. Hopkins, 1 Gall. C. C. Troy ■;;. Troy, 1 Win. (N. C.) Eq. 455 ; 77 ; Lessee of Ferguson v. Zepp, 4 Pulbam V. Byrd, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) Wash. C. C. 645. Eq. 134; « Beale v. Holmes, 6 Har. & J. Henderson v. Vaulx, 10 Yerg. (Md.) 205 ; (Tenn.) 30. Jackson ex d. Wells v. WeUs, 9 * See : Ante, § 373. John. (N. Y.) 232 ; ' Sheaf V. Gushing, 17 N. H. 508 ; Hall v. Goodwin, 2 Nott & McC. Provoost V. Clayer, 62 N. Y. 545, (S. C.) 383. 549 ; ' Pickering v. Langdon, 32 Me. 413. Chap. XVI. §§ 648, 649.] EMBLEMENTS— EIGHT TO. 537 Section V, — Emblements. Sec. 648. Definition of emblements. Sec. 649. Life tenant entitled to. Sec. 650. Crop must be planted by the tenant. Sec. 651. Where estate determined by tenant. Sec. 653. Ingress, egress, and regress. Section 648. Deflnition of emblements.— All annual pro- ducts of the earth which do not grow spontaneously, but depend upon the labor and industry of man in culti- vating the soil, are known as emblements. The term emblements includes all those products known asfructus industriales,^ as contra-distinguished from such products as are known as fructus naturales} The term emble- ments includes the different cereals and vegetables, and tubers, wheat, corn, beans, hay, flax, potatoes, and the like, but does not include grasses and fruits,^ or trees,* or any- thing that grows from the perennial root, except hops,^ which depend upon the labor and manurance of man for their value. Sec. 649. Life tenant entitled to.— Where a tenant for life dies before the crop is harvested, his representatives are entitled to the emblements not yet severed from the land, which are the immediate fruits of his labor, as a return for the expense of plowing and sowing the .ground.^ The doctrine of emblements, which rests partly upon an idea of compensation, but more generally upon • Eeiff V. Reiff, 64 Pa. St. 137. be taken as emblements, be- See : Ante, § 53. cause the improvements are ^ See : Ante, § 55. not distinguishable from what ' Evans v. Iglehart, 6 GiLl & J. (Md.) is a natural product, although 188 ; it may be increased by cultiva- EeiflC V. Eeiff, 64 Pa. St. 137 ; tion. Evans v. Iglehart, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) Eeiff v. Eeiff, 64 Pa. St. 137. 171,189; ^ Except nursery stock, which is Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c. regarded as in the nature of 25 Am. Dec. 470 ; an emblement. "Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) ^ See : Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. 613 ; (N. y.) 108. Eeiff V. Eeiff, 64 Pa. St, 134 ; « Poindexter v. Blackburn, 1 Ired. Evans v. Eoberts, 5 Barn. & C. (N. C.) Eq. 286 ; 829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Perry v. ToUier, 1 Dev. & B. (N. ScoveU V. Boxall, 1 Y. & J. 896. C.) Eq. 441 ; A growing crop of grass, even if Hunt v. Watkins, 1 Humph. grown from seed, and though (Tenn;) 498. ready to be cut for hay, cannot 538 TENANT DETERMINING ESTATE. Book III. the policy of encouraging husbandry by assuring the benefit of his labor to one who cultivates the soil/ owes its existence entirely to the uncertainty of the termina- tion of the estate ; ^ consequently, where the termination of an estate is certain, there exists no title to emble- ments.^ Sec. 650. Crop must be planted by tenant.— To entitle a life tenant or his representatives to emblements, he must have planted the crops himself. If the crops were planted by another, no matter how much care or atten- tion he may have bestowed upon them, he will not be entitled thereto.* Thus if a person seizisd in fee of lands already sown and planted in grain grants them to another for life, remainder over to a third, and the first grantee dies without severance, the person in remainder will be entitled to the emblements, and not the personal representative of the first grantee.^ Sec. 651. Where estate determined by tenant.— The gen- eral rule of law is that when a tenant of land has an uncertain interest, which is determined either by the act of God or by the act of another, then he shall have the emblements ; but it is otherwise where the tenancy is determined by his own act.^ Thus if an estate is granted 1 Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N Y.) 107. = Wilmarth v. Cutting, 10 John. (N Y.) 360, 361. ' Wilmarth v. Cutting, 10 John. (N, Y.) 360, 361. See : Barn v. Clark, 10 John. (N, Y.) 434 ; Kingsbury v. Collins, 4 Bing. 302 s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 467 ; Davies v. Connop, 1 Price 53 ; 1 Co. Litt, (19th ed.) 55a. * Price V. Pickett, 31 Ala. 471 ; Haslett V. Glenn, 7 Har. & J, (Md.) 17 ; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N Y.) 108 ; Gee V. Young, 1 Hayw. (N. C.)17 Thompson v. Thompson, 6 Munf , (Va.) 514 ; Grantham ■;;. Hawley, 1 Hob. 133, ^Haslett V. Glenn, 7 Har. & J, (Md.) 17 ; Grantham v. Hawley, 1 Hob. 133. In the case of Haslett v. Glenn, supra, lands already sown and planted in grain were conveyed in trust for liusband and wife, and the survivor of them. The husband died before the crop was gathered, and tlie court held that the crops survived to the wife, and did not go to the husband's representative ; but that if the husband had sown the ground the crop would have gone to his representative, and not to his widow. « EoweU V. Kline, 44 Ind. 390 ; Chesley v. Welch, 37 Me. 106 ; Chandler v. Thurston; 37 Mass. (10 Pick.) 310 ; Debow V. Titus, 10 N. J. L. (5 ■ Halst.) 138 ; Wilmarth v. Cutting, 10 John. (N. Y.) 361 ; Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 31 ; Chap. XVI. § 652.] INGRESS, EGRESS, AND REGRESS. 539 to a husband and wife during coverture, and after the husband has sown the lands to grain, they are divorced, causa prcecontr actus, the husband will be entitled to the emblements; for although the suit is the act of the par- ties, yet the judgment dissolving the marriage is the act of the law, and in presumption of law the judgment is against inclination.^ But where a woman holds lands durante viduitate, which is an estate for life, sows them to grain, and afterwards marries, she will not be entitled to emblements, for the reason that the estate was deter- mined by her own act.^ Yet it seems that if a widow, having an estate during her widowhood, leases the premises, and after the lessee has planted it to crops the widow marries, the tenant will be entitled to the emblements.^ Sec. 652. Ingress, egress, and regress. — The right to emblements does not give a right to the exclusive pos- session of all the lands, but only the right of ingress, egress, and regress so far as is needful for due attention to and gathering the crops.* We have already seen that one of the incidents of a life estate is the power of mak- ing leases, or a conveyance of a portion or the whole of a life estate,® and where such lease or conveyance has been made, the lessee or grantee has the same rights and privileges, during the continuance of the estate, as are incident to the life tenant ; ^ consequently, where such a lease or conveyance has been made, and the life tenant McLean v. Bovee, 24 Wis. 295 ; Gland's Case, 5 Co. 116. Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 Barn. &Ald. " Beavans v. Briscoe, 4 Har. & J. 470 ; (Md.) 139. Richard v. Liford, 10 Co. 151. Compare ; Debow v. Colfax, 10 ' Gould V. Webster, 1 Tyl. (Vt.)409 ; N. J. L. (5 Halst.) 128 : Gland's Case, 5 Co. 116 ; Bettinger v. Baker, 29 Pa. St. 70 ; 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 248b, 314b. Bulwor v. Bulwer, 2 Barn. & Aid. » Gland v. Hardwicke, Cro. Eliz. 470 ; 461 ; Davis v. Eyton, 7 Bing. 154 ; s.c. Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 Bam. & Aid. 20 Eng. C. L. 77 ; 470 ; Glnr.d's Case, 5 Co. 116. Wickes V. Jordon, 2 Bulst. 213 ; " Humphries v. Humphries, 3 Ired. Debow V. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. (5 (N. C.) Eq. 362 ; Halst.) 128 ; Forsythe v. Price, 3 Watts (Pa.) Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph. 282. (Tenn.) 31 ; » See : Ante, §§ 686, 590, et seq. Hunter v. Watkins, 1 Humph. « Miles v. Miles, 32 N. H. 147 ; s.c. (Tenn.) 498 ; 64 Am. Dec. 362. 540 ESTOVERS— KINDS. [Book III. dies du-'ing the term, his lessee or vendee will have the right of ingress, egress, and regress for the purpose of cultivating and harvesting the crops, ^ but such lessee or grantee will not have a right to the exclusive occupation of the premises for such purposes.^ Section VI.— Estovers. Sec. 653. Definition of estovers. Sec. 654. Kinds of estovers. Sec. 655. Life tenant entitled to. Sec. 656. Same — Where tenant a widow. Sec. 657. What may be taten— Effect of exceeding right. Sec. 658. Same — English and American doctrines. Sec. 659. When to be taken. Sec. 660. For what purposes taken. Sec. 661. Where to be taken from. Sec. 662. Where to be used. Sec. 663. Common of estovers Section 653. Definition of estovers.— The wood and timber necessary to be used on the estate for the purpose of build- ing, burning, plowing and fencing, and other agricultural purposes, are called estovers.^ The word estovers is derived from the French estoffer, to furnish or maintain mate- rials. In the Saxon such supplies were termed botes. Sec. 654. Kinds of estovers.- Estovers are divided into the following general classes, to wit : (1) House-botes, or timber sufficient for repairing the house ; (2) fire-botes, or wood sufficient to be burnt in one's house ; (3) plow-botes or car-botes, that is, timber sufficient for making and re- pairing instruments of husbandry ; and (4) hay-botes or hedge-botes, that is, timber sufficient for making and re- pairing fences and hedges.* > Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns. (N. (Md.) 139 ; Y.) 107 ; Beavan v. Delahay, 1 H. Black. Humphries v. Humphries, 3 Ired. 5 ; (N. C.) L. 363 ; Griffith v. Puleston, 13 Mee. & Forsythe v. Price, 8 Watts (Pa.) W. 357. 383 ; S.C. 34 Am. Dec. 465 ; ' Heyden's Case, 18 Co. 68 ; Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 73. (Tenn.) 31, 35. ■• Anderson's L. Diet. 133 ; * Beavans v. BiisODe, 4 Har. & J. 2 Bl. Com. 35. Chap. XVI. § 656.] LIFE TENANT'S TITLE TO— WIDOW. 541 Sec. 655. Life tenant entitled to.— We have already seen ^ that it is the duty of the life tenant to keep the premises in repair during the continuance of his estate.^ By the common law, as a compensation for this duty, every life tenant and his lessee or assignee ^ has, incident to his estate, and without an express grant, the right to take, in reasonable measure, estovers for himself and family residing upon the land,* for fuel and repair,^ un- less restrained from taking them by special covenant.^ The rule as to estovers is not as strictly enforced in this country as in England, where the timber is more scarce and valuable. As a rule, the right to take fire-bote will embrace a right to take fuel, not only for the house of the life tenant, but also for the use of a servant or farmer who cultivates the land for the life tenant,'^ even though such servant resides on an adjoining tract, ^ where it can be done without injury to the inheritance. But it is said in Sarles v. Sarles,^ that a life tenant of a farm of one hundred and sixty-five acres is not entitled to fire-bote for the dwelling-house of a farmer or laborer, in addition to fire-bote for the principal dwelling-house or mansion, and that a custom allowing it to be taken is unreasonable and invalid. Sec. 656. Same— Where tenant a widow.— Where the life tenant is a widow, in order to entitle her to take firewood, there must be a house upon the land when it is assigned ■ See : Ante, § 600. ' See : Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. "- Matter of Steele, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 273 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621 ; C. E. Gr.) 120. Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill (S. 3 See : Cook v. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 C.) Eq. 377 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. Gray) 123 ; 73. Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186; « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. Smith V. Jewett, 40 N. H. 583 ; Where there was such a covenant FuUer v. Wason, 7 N. H. 341. in the instrument creating the White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) estate, it did not make the cut- 248 ; ting of estovers waste, but only Smith V. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530 ; rendered the tenant liable in Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; damages on the covenant. s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Dy. 198b, pi. 53. Miles V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c. ' Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530. 64 Am. Dec. 362 ; See : Webster v. Webster, 33 N. Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 : H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705. Folsom V. Chesley, 2 N. H. 432 ; * Gardiner v. Derring, 1 Paige Ch. Elliot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430 ; (N. Y.) 578. Smith V Poyas, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. ' 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 601. 65. 542 WHAT MAY BE TAKEN AS. [Book III. to her as dower ; the tenant can use the wood only in such house, and if she takes the wood herself, or permits any one else to take it, to be used elsewhere, it will be accounted waste. 1 In the case of Fuller v. Wason,^ Eichaedson, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, said that every tenant in dower has a right, incident to the estate, to take firewood, if there be a house assigned to her on the land ; to take timber for the repairing of fences and buildings upon the land ; and to take timber to make plows, etc. , if there be tillage ; but that she has only a special property in the wood, to use it for those purposes upon the land, and cannot sell it ; that she cannot take timber from the land to build a new house or new fences, where there were none before. In White v. Cutler,^ after dower had been assigned to a widow, in a dwelling-house and the land connected therewith, consisting in part of woodland, all of which was occupied by the husband as one farm, she removed from the land and resided in another family at board, where she was supplied with fuel. The house, having become untenantable, was taken dov/n with the consent of all parties. The court held that neither the widow nor the lessee of the dower estate had a right to cut the wood thereon for fuel, and that the reversioner would have a right to take such wood if it should be severed by them.* Sec. 65T. Wliat may be taken— EflFeet of exceeding right.— A tenant for life or his assign is entitled to take reasonable estovers ; ^ that is, to cut trees and timber for fuel, fences, and the repairing of buildings, such as may be necessary for the temporary enjoyment of the estate ; ^ if more timber is cut than is necessary for such enjoyment of his estate, 1 Phillips ■Z7. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) <> Cook v. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 115,117; 123; ^ ^' Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) Miles v. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.o. 133 ; 64 Am. Dec. 362. FuUer v. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 ; See : White v. Cutler, 34 Mass. Elliot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430. (17 Pick.) 253. See : White v. Cutler, 34 Mass. ' See : Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. (17 Pick.) 348. 273 ; s.c. P3 Am. Dec. 631 ; 7 N. H. 341. Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 348. (S. C.) Eq. 277 ; s.o. 39 Am. Dec. Blaker v. Anscombe, 4 Bos. & P. 72 ; 35 ; s.c. 8 Eev. Eep. 746. Heyden's Case, 13 Co. 68. Chap. XVI. § 658.] ENGLISH AND AMERICAN DOCTRINES. 543 it will be waste, and he will be liable therefor to the re- mainderman or reversioner.^ The extent of a life tenant's right in this matter does not in all cases depend on neces- sities,"^ and the precise extent to which he may go in ex- ercising his rights under the general rule is not yet well settled." It is well settled, however, that for the purpose of fuel, the life tenant is bound to take the dead, dry, fallen, and perishing wood.* The tenant must cut only so much of the standing timber as may be necessary for fuel, or for making and repairing fences and buildings ; ^ and he may not cut more for this purpose than is actually needed at the time ; thus he may not cut two years' fuel in one and the same year, but must take it year by year.^ Sec. 658. Same — English and American doctrines. — In England the rule governing estovers is very strictly ap- plied as to the amount of wood and timber to be taken, the age and qualities of the trees to be cut ; and a ten- ' Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill (S. C.) Eq. 277 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 73. Assent of the reversioner,however, to the cutting and sale estops him from claiming a forfeiture on their account, and if the estate is by will charged with the com- fortable support of the tenant, and the wood cut and sold went for the tenant's support, the fact is to be considered in determiu- ing the question of assent. Clemenoe v. Steere, 1 R. I. -373; s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 621. ' Robertson v. Headers, 73 Ind. 43. 3 Miles V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 362, 364. The American doctrine on the subject is more eiilarged than the Eng- lish, and better accommodated to the cLroumstanoes of a new and growing country, where timber is neither so scarce nor so valuable. MUes V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 363, 364 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 73, 76. 4 Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown- son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 337, 356 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 258, 263 ; Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640 ; s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 286. Waste question for jnry. — To what extent wood may be cut before the tenant is guilty of waste is a matter that must be left to the sound discretion of the jury under the directions of the court. It seems that a single tree out down without justifi- able cause is waste (Jackson ex d. Church v. Brownson, 7 Joha. (N. Y.) 227 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 258) as effectually as if a thousand were cut down ; and the reason is this, that such trees belong to the owner of the inheritance, and the tenant has only a qualified property in them for shade and shelter, etc. Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown- son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 227, 236 : s.c. 5.Am. Dec. 258, 263. See : McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114. Whiter. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 248; Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 9, 30; Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown- son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 227, 236 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 258, 263 ; Gorges v. Stanfield, 2 Cro. Eliz. 593; Dunn V. Bryan, 7 Ir. Reports Eq. 143. ' White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 248; Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341. 544 WHEN TAKEN— PURPOSES, [Book III. ant's rights are very limited indeed, unless he holds with- out impeachment for waste. Indeed it has been held that the felling of oak-trees along the avenue of a park, or the cutting of trees not of proper growth, is waste, forfeiting the estate.^ In America regard must be had to the circum- stances of a new and unsettled country.^ Timber in this country being neither so scarce nor so valuable, the rule is not so strictly applied as in England. Many things may be done by a tenant for life here that if done in England would be accounted waste. ^ This is because of the re- quirements of the country, and of the necessity, in many instances, of clearing the land for agricultural purposes.* Sec. 659. When to be taken.— A tenant for life, in taking estovers for fuel or fencing or repairs, must exercise ordinary care and discretion to cut the timber at season- able times, ^ so as not to injure or impair the estate. Sec. 660. For what purposes taken.— The general rule regulating estovers allows them to be taken for those purposes necessary to the complete temporary enjoyment of the estate ; that is, the wood and timber necessary for the purpose of burning, building, fencing, and repairing. This right to estovers will include also the right to cut timber to be used in working mines already opened on the estate.® ^ut a life tenant has no right to cut down timber for any other purpose, or to sell it ; because when the life tenant cuts wood or timber for ' See : Paokington's Case, 3 Atk. (11 Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 216 ; 207, 210 ; Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640 ; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 33 N. J. L. s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 286 ; (3 Zab.) 521 ; Gorges v. Stanfield, 3 Ore. Eliz. Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown- ^^3 ; son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 327 ; s.c. 5 Abraham v. Buff, Freem. Chan. Am. Dec. 258 ; 54 ; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Vane v. Barnard, 3 Vem. 788 ; Y.) 359. Tamworth v. Ferrers, 6 Ves. 419 ; « Harde v. Harde, 36 Barb. (N. Y ) Aston V. Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 264. 409 ; ^ Findlay i;. Smith,6Munf. (Va.)134; Gardner v. Den-ing, 1 Paige Ch. s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733. (N. Y.) 573. ' Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Ohio St. « Neel v. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 333. 180, 184 ; See : Den v. Kinney, 5 N. J. L. WiUiard v. Williard, 56 Pa. St. (3 South.) 553 ; ^ 139 ; Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Ohio St. Lymi's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. 180 ; d c '^^ ^"^- P®°- "^^^^ Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) See : Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733 Chap. XVI. § 660.] PURPOSES FOR WHICH TAKEN. 545 purposes disconnected with the premises, he is no longer using his life estate in the lands, but is converting to his own use the permanent growth of the earth. ^ Thus a life tenant cannot cut and sell wood or timber to raise money, wherewith to pay for repairs, however necessary or indispensable, 2 although the amount sold be less than he would have a right to consume for the purpose ;^ ' MUes V. Miles, 33 N. H. 167 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 363. See : Davis v. Easley, 13 111. 193 ; Richardson v. York, 14 Me. 316, 330; Hubbard v. Shaw, 94 Mass. (13 Allen) 130 ; Phillips V. Alien, 89 Mass (7 Allen) 115; Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 133 • White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 384 ; Padelford v. Padelford, 34 Mass. (7 Pick.) 153 ; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594: Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 ; EUiot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430 ; Sarles v. Sarles, 7 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 601. ' Dennett v. Dennett, 43 N. H. 500. See : Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Miles V. Miles, 83 N. H. 147 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 363, 364 ; Elliot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430, 433. 3 Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341. Compare : Dodd v. Watson, 4 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 48; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 577. Doctrine of Dodd v. Watson. — The Supreme Court of North Caro- lina say, in the case of Dodd v. Watson, 4 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 48 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 577, 578, that a tenant for Ufe does not exceed his rights by cutting and using timber to repair buildings on the land, and by selling a very moderate amount thereof, all the timber taken being of the value of but a few hundred dollars, and an abun- dance being left for the full en- joyment of a privilege to take the timber for the use of a saw- mill, owned by the tenant for life and another. 35 Doctrine ofLoomisv. Wilbur. — Jus- tice Story held in the case of Loomis V. Wilbur, 5 Mas. C. C. 13, that it is not waste in a ten- ant for life to cut down timber trees for the purpose of making necessary repans on the estate, and to sell them and purchase boards with the proceeds, for such repairs, provided this be proved to be the most economi- cal mode of making the repairs. The court say : " If the cutting down of the timber was with- out any intention of repairs, but for sale generally, the act itself would doubtless be waste; and if so, it would not be purged or its character changed by a subsequent application of the proceeds to repairs. But if the cutting down and sale were originally for the purpose of repairs, and the sale was an economical mode of making the repairs, and the most for the benefit of all concerned, and the proceeds were bona fide applied for that purpose, in pursuance of the original in- tent, it does not appear to me to be possible that such a cut- ting down and sale can be waste. It would be repugnant to the principles of common- sense that the tenant should be obliged to make the repairs in the way most expensive and injurious to the inheritance." The facts in this case were as fol- lows : The life tenant was very poor ; the premises needed re- pairing badly ; he cut ten trees and sold them and bought the necessary boards wherewith to make the needed repairs ; it was shown to the court that by this means the repairs were most advantageously and eco- nomically made. The ruling has been justified on the ground 546 WHERE TAKEN— WHERE USED. [Book IH. neither can he sell wood or timber to purchase fuel,' or pay for cutting what he needs for house use.^ Neither can a tenant cut wood for the piirpose of burn- ing for sale brick made from clay dug on the land.^ Sec. 661. Where to be taken from.— A life tenant en- titled to estovers has a right to take them where they can most conveniently be obtained without injury to the estate ; he is not bound to resort for timber and fuel, necessarily and properly used on the farm, to the outlying lands.* Sec. 662. Where to be used.— The estovers taken by a life tenant must be used on the estate where they are ob- tained,^ they cannot be used on any other estate, although both estates were acquired by the same title ;^ but a life that it was a " hard " case, and can be excused on no other. ' See : White v. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 248 ; Padelford v. Padelford, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 152 ; Miles V. Miles, 32 N. H. 147 '; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 362 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594; Doe V. Wilson, 11 East 56. « See : Phillips v. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 AUen) 115 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594. ' Livingston v. Reynolds, 2 HiE (N. Y.) 157 ; B.C. 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 115. ^ In the case of Webster v. Web- ster, 33 N. H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705, the evidence showed that the defendants cut about ten cords of wood and drew it to tlie house on the prem- ises for fuel. There were about one thousand cords of wood growing on the land. The quantity cut does not ap- pear to be unreasonable for a year's supply. As to the quality and value of the trees cut, the evidence is somewhat contra- dictory. The inference we draw from the whole is, that about five small oak-trees were cut and split into fuel that might have answered for cer- tain descriptions of timber ; but the quantity would have been small, and the salable value trifling, and it would have been bad economy to attempt to select these few sticks and dis- pose of them as timber. There were other trees on the farm, scrub-oaks, birch, and white maple, that might have been taken for fuel ; but they were more difficult to get, and some of the witnesses sai'd the wood for the fuel could not have been cut with less injury to the farm in any other way. The tenant was entitled to take out of the thousand cords on the farm good fuel, and such as was conveniently situated. ^ Phillips V. Allen, 89 Mass. (4 Allen) 115, 117 ; Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 123 ; White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 248 ; Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 ; Elliot V. Smith, 2 N. H. 430 ; Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 601 ; Gardiner v. Derring, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 573. Compare: Dalton v. Dalton, 7 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 197 ; Loomis V. Wilbur, 5 Mas. C. C. 13. « Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 123. Chap. XVI. § 663.] COMMON OF ESTOVERS. 547 tenant is not bound to notice a division of the reversion in the estate among the heirs. Thus it was held in Owen V. Hyde,^ that a widow occupying a dower is not bound to notice any division which may have been made of the reversionary interest after the termination of her life estate ; that she took the estate as it was assigned to her with the rights and liabilities which attach to it as a whole ; and that although she may have destroyed all the timber which was on apart of one of the lots included in her dower, yet if the dower estate was not injured, but benefited thereby, she would not be guilty of waste, for that is the great criterion by which to determine whether waste has been committed, as that only which does a lasting damage to the inheritance, or depreciates its value as a whole, is waste. And it has also been held that where two parcels of land are obtained from the same estate, the tenant of the life estate may use wood on one part which was cut from the other. ^ Sec. 663. Commonofestovers.— Where several tenants, for life or for a term of years, have a right to take necessary wood and timber for fuel, fences, and other agricultural purposes, from the same estate, it becomes a common of estovers.^ Common of estovers cannot be apportioned. Where a farm entitled to estovers is di- vided by the act of the party among several tenants, neither of them can take estovers ; they belong to the whole farm as an entirety, and not to parts of it ; and as the owner of no one portion of the farm entitled to common can enjoy the right, it is necessarily extin- guished, and can be revived only by a new grant ; * and where common of estovers by operation of law, as by ^ 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334 ; s.c. 37 Am. Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Teim.) Dec. 467. 334 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 467. '' Phillips V. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 ' Livingston v. Ketcham, 1 Barb. Alifen) 117 ; (N. Y.) 592 ; Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) Van Renssellaer v. Radcliflf, 10 123 ; Wend. (N. Y.) 639 ; s.c. 25 Am. Padelford v. Padelford, 34 Mass. Dec. 583. (7 Pick.) 158 ; * Van Renssellaer v. Radcliflf, JO Webster v. Webster, 83 N. H. 18, Wend. (N.Y.) 639 ; 36 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Bruerton's Case, 6 Co. 1 ; Dalton V. Dalton, 7 Ired. (N. C.) Tyrringham's Case, 4 Co. 38 ; Eq. 197 ; 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 164b. 548 DIVISION OF ESTOVERS— WASTE. [Book III. descent, devolves upon several, they cannot enjoy the right in severalty, but may unite in a conveyance and vest the right in one individual.^ Section VII.— Waste. Sec. 664. Definition. Sec. 665. What constitutes waste. Sec. 666. Same — Exceptions to the rule. Sec. 667. Kinds of waste. Sec. 668. Same — Voluntary waste. Sec. 669. Same — Permissive waste. Sec. 670. Liability of life tenant for waste — Common-law doctrine. Sec. 671. Same — American doctrine. Sec. 673. Same — ^Acts of strangers. Sec. 673. Same — Tenants in dower and curtesy. Sec. 674. Same — Same — Permissive waste. Sec. 675. Kinds of lands subject to waste. Sec. 676. Acts constituting waste — General rule. Sec. 677. Same — 1. Felling timber— General rule. Sec. 678. Same — Same — Amount to be taken. Sec. 679. Same — Same — Particular kinds of trees. Sec. 680. Same — Same — Local custom as to timber trees. Sec. 681. Same — Same — Timber improperly cut — Property in. Sec. 683. Same — 3. Opening mines. Sec. 683. Same — 3. In respect to buildings — Pulling down houses. Sec. 684. Same — Same — Dilapidations. Sec. 685. Same — Same — Alterations. Sec. 686. Same — Same — Erection of new buildings. Sec. 687. Same — 4. Changing course of husbandry. Sec. 688. Same — Same — Permitting land to become foul. Sec. 689. Sajne — 5. Destruction of heirlooms. Sec. 690. Partial power to commit waste. Sec. 691. Waste by ecclesiastics. Sec. 693. Destruction by fire. Sec. 693. Without impeachment of waste. ' Van RensseUaer v. Eadclifl, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 639. According to the English rule, where such inheritances are divided, it appears by the books that the elders shall have them, and the others a contribution ; but if no other -property de- scended from which contribu- tion could be had, then the par- ceners should have alternate enjoyment, or, in case of pis- cary, one shall have the first fish and another the second ; and so of a toll-fish, where the hereditament was the toU of a miU. If, however, that doc- trine were applicable here, it would only relate to descents, not alienation by deed ; and even as to descents, it has been held that one of several heirs, to whom a right of estovers descended, could not aUen his share so as to authorize the assignee to enter and cut wood. Leyman v. Abeel, 16 John. 30. Chap. XVI. §§ 664, 665.] WHAT CONSTITUTES WASTE. 549 Sec. 694. Remedies for waste — 1. Writ of estrepement and writ of waste. Sec. 695. Same — 3. Injunction. Sec. 696. Same — Same — Character of the remedy. Sec. 697. Same — Same — ^When granted. Sec. 698. Same — Same — Same — Threat to commit waste. Sec. 699. Same^Same — Same — Permissive waste. Sec. 700. Same — Same — Same — Privity of title. Sec. 701. Same — Same — In favor of whom granted. Sec. 703. Same — Same — Against whom granted. Sec. 703. Same — Same — Bill for account. Sec. 704. Same— 3. Forfeiture of estate. Section 664. Definition.— Waste, as applied to a life es- tate, consists in an unlawful act or omission of duty which results in a permanent injury to the estate, or which tends to the destruction of the estate or the depreciation in value of the inheritance.^ It may consist either in diminishing the value of the estate, increasing its burden,^ or changing and destroying the evidences of title to the inheritance,^ such as spoiling or destroying houses, gar- dens, parks, warrens, dove-cots, trees, or other corporeal hereditaments, to the disherison of him that has the re- mainder or reversion.* Sec. 665. What constitutes waste.— Waste in this coun- try is not to he determined by the rules in the English ' Wilds V. Layton, 1 Del. Ch. 336 ; destruction of the inheritance s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 91 ; or the impairing of its value is DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. waste. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350 ; Smith v. Sharpe, 1 Busbee (N. C.) Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; L. 91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 574. s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; ' Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5 Smith V. Sharpe, 1 Busbee (N. C.) Barn. & Ad. 507, 517 ; s.c. 37 L. 91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 574. Eng. C. L. 317, 331 ; The term " waste " embraces im- Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573, proper usage. 588 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570, 588. 59 Am. Dec. 70, note. ' See : Profflt v. Henderson, 39 Mo. Waste is the abuse or destructive 337 ; use of property by him who has McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. not an absolute, unqualified 117 ; title. Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5 DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Barn. & Ad. 507 ; s.c. 37 Eng. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350. C. L. 217 ; Waste is defined to be spoil or de- Jones v. Chappell, L. R. 30 Eq. struction in houses, gardens, 539 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng. Rep. trees, or other corporeal heredi- 475 ; taments, to the disherison of Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573 ; him that has the remainder or s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570. reversion in fee-simple ; what- * 3 Bl. Com. 381 ; ever is done which tends to the 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a. 550 KINDS OF WASTE. Book III. law in all respects, because of the difference of the situa- tion in the two countries. Thus the cutting of timber for the purpose of clearing is waste in England, but not necessarily in this country.^ What is to be deemed waste in this country must, in a considerable degree, be left to a jury upon the evidence.^ But in equity the court must find the facts, whether waste has been committed or threatened. The general principle governing the ques- tion is that the tenant shall not be permitted to do any act of permanent injury to the inheritance, except to take his reasonable estovers.^ Sec. 666. Same— Exceptions to the rule.— There are some exceptions to this general rule. Thus damage resulting to houses, wood, or soil, from the act of God,* as by light- ning or tempest ; or from public enemies, as an invaded army ; or from the reversioner himself, is not waste. Sec. 667. Kinds of waste.— Waste may be divided into three classes : first, voluntary waste, as by act of com- mission ; second, involuntary waste, by an act of omis- sion ; and third', eventual waste, as an act done by an admitted particular tenant after the institution of a suit involving the title, or a partition suit.^ 668. Same— Voluntary waste.— Voluntary waste consists in a commission of some destructive act ;® such as (1) felling timber trees, '^ (2) pulling down houses,^ (3) opening mines or pits, ^ (4) changing course of husbandry, i<* (5) destroying heirlooms," and the like. Sec. 669. Same— Permissive waste.— Permissive waste is ' See : Post, § 677, et seq. Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; See : Padelford v. Padelford, 24 s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Mass. (7 Pick.) 153 ; Chase v. Haaelton, 7 N. H. 171. Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; « See : Post, § 670. s.o. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; ' Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Ward V. Sheppard, 2 Hayw. (N. (Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 850. C.) 283 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 625 ; « See : Ante, § 667. rindlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) ' See : Post, 8 677, et seq. 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733 ; » See : Post, S, 683. Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5 ' See : Post, § 683. Barn. & Ad. 507 ; s.c. 27 Eng. w See : Post,''% 687. , ^ C. L. 317. » Baxter v. Taylor, 1 Nev. & M. 13. ' Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 See : Post, S 689. Met.) 304; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307; Chap. XVI. § 670.] LIABILITY FOR WASTE. 551 that injury to an estate which results from the mere neglect or omission to do what will prevent injury ; such as to suffer houses or other improvements to go to decay for Avant of repairs. It may be incurred in respect to the soil as well as to the buildings, trees, and fences, or other improvements on the premises.^ But if a house be ruinous at the time when the tenant for life comes into possession, he is not liable for waste in suffering it to fall down ; for in such a case he is not bound by law to repair it. Sec. 670. Liability of life tenant for waste— Common-law doctrine.— At common law the tenant for life was not liable for waste ; liability was first placed upon him by the statute of Marlebridge,- which gave the right to owners of the inheritance to recover damages for the waste committed or suffered, and by the statute of Gloucester,^ which forfeited the estate and gave the reversioner or remainderman a right to recover treble the damages. It may be said to be a general principle of law that a tenant for life, without some special agreement to the contrary, is responsible to the reversioner for all in- juries amounting to waste done to the premises during his term,* by whomsoever the injuries may have been committed, with the exception of the acts of God, and public enemies, and the acts of the reversioner himself. The tenant is like a common carrier, and the law in this ' As to injunction against permis- sive waste, see : Post, § 699. ».')3Hen.in.,c.23. ■" 6Edvv. L, c. 5. '' Negligence or wantonnesa on the part of a tenant for life oc- casioning any permanent waste to the subsistence of the estate, whether the waste be voluntary or permissive, he becomes liable in the suit by the persons en- titled to the immediate estate of inheritance, to answer in dam- ages as well as to have his future operation stayed. 2 Bl. Com. 281 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a, 53b ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 76. Assignee of estate pur autre vie.— For the purpose of creating an estate pur autre vie by assign- ment, the estate of tenant in tail after possibility of issue ex- tinct does not differ from an estate for life (3 Prest. Conv. 171, 172). and the assignee is punishable for waste. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 28a; 2 Inst. 302. Permissive waste — Destruction by fire. — Under the head of per- missive waste, the tenant is answerable if the house or other building on the premises be destroyed by fire through his carelessness or negligence, and must rebuild, in a con- venient time, at his own ex- pense. See : Post, § 692. 552 LIABILITY— AMERICAN DOCTEINE. [Book IH. instance is founded on the same great principles of public policy. The landlord cannot protect the property against strangers ; the tenant is on the spot, and presumed to be able to protect it himself. ^ Sec. 671. Same— American doctrine.— The American doc- trine on the subject of waste is somewhat varied from that of the English law, and is more enlarged and better adapted to the circumstances of a new and growing country, the major portion of which had to be reclaimed and subjected to cultivation. ^ In this country, as a gen^ feral rule, unless the estate is expressly made unimpeach- I able for waste, a life tenant is responsible for all waste done to the premises, not caused by the act of Grod, or the public enemy, or the acts of the remainderman or re- versioner himself ; ^ but such a tenant is not chargeable ' White V. Wagner, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 373 ; s.o. 7 Am. Dec. 674. = Parkins v. Coxe, 3 Haj'w. (N. C.) 339; Hastings v. Crunckleton, 8 Yeates (Pa.) 361 ; Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo. 733 ; Crouch V. Puryear. 1 Rand. (Va.) 258 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 77. In Massachusetts, however, the in- clination has been to favor the strict English rule ; and that ■was one of the reasons assigned for holding the widow not dow- able of wild lands in an uncul- tivated state ; because the land did not admit of the enjoy- ment of dower without com- mitting waste and thus forfeit- ing the estate. Conner v. Shepherd, 15 Mass. 164. See : White v. Cutler, 84 Mass. (17 Pick.) 248, 250 ; "Webb V. Townsend, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 21, 22; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. i32 = Miller 'i7. Shields, 55 Ind. 71 ; White V. Wagner, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 378 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 674 ; Clark V. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) 8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 ; Sackett v. Sackett, 26 Mass. (8 Pick.) 309, 314 ; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H.594; Chase v. Hazelton, 1 N. H. 171 ; Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 823, 324; Smith V. Daniel, 2 McC. (S. C.) Eq. 143 ; Dejarnatte v. AUen, 5 Gratt. (Va. ^ 499. Waste tmder reservation. — Tenant for life has no right to commit waste under reservation of ' ' all the right, title, and interest in and unto the above-named land and premises for and during mv natural life." Webster v. Webster, 83 N. H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705. Tenants in common liability to co- tenant for waste. See : Nelson's Heirs v. Clay, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 138; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 387 ; Smith V. Sharpe, Busbee(N. C.)L. 91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 574 ; Hancock v. Day. 1 McM. (S. C.) Eq. 69 ; s.o. 36 Am. Deo. 293; Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill (S. C.) Eq. 277 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 72. Alienee of life tenant is liable to the remainderman or rever- sioner for waste. Dejarnatte u. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.) 499. igectment cannot "be maintained by a remainderman or rever- sioner to recover the premises wasted ; such recovery can be attained only by an action of waste. Chap. XVI. § 672.] LIABILITY— ACTS OF STRANGERS. 553 with waste committed to the injury of the remainderman, unless the evidence affirmatively shows such facts as will sustain the charge ; and the presumption is in favor of the tenant for life until the contrary appears.-^ The acts which may be done in this country without being guilty of waste are much less restricted than they are in England. ^ Thus in North Carolina it has been held not to be waste to clear tillable lands for the nec- essary support of the tenant's family, though the timber be destroyed in clearing,^ and in Virginia it is said that the law of waste is so varied from that in England that a tenant in dower, in working coal mines already opened^ may penetrate into new seams, and sink new shafts, with- out being chargeable with waste.* Sec. 672. Same— Acts of strangers.- A tenant for life is not responsible for waste occasioned by the act of God, or the public enemy, or of the law ; ° but he is liable not only for his own acts, but also for those of strangers who injure the estate ; "^ and to enable him to protect the estate the law gives him an action for trespass against the wrong-doer." Consequently where waste is com- mitted by the life tenant himself, or by a stranger, he is liable to the reversioner or remainderman.^ See : Robinson v. Robinson, 2 B. East 489 ; Mon. (Ky.) 284 ; Jackson v. Pesked, 1 Maule & S. Patrick v. Sherwood, 4 Blatchf. 234. C. C. 112. * See : White v. Wagner, 4 Har. & ' Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. J. (Md.) 373 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 73 Am. Dec. 721. 674 ; ' See : Ward v. Sheppard, 2 Hayw. Fay v. Brewer, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) (N. C.) 383 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 203 ; 635. Beers v. Beers, 21 Mich. 464 ; 3 Parkins v. Coxe, 3 Hayw. (N. C.) Wood v. Griffin, 46 N. H. 230, 839. 337 ; * Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) Austin v. Hudson R. R. Co., 25 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 783 ; N. Y. 384, 341 ; Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.) Cook iJ.Champlain Transportation 358 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528. Co., 1 Den. (N. Y.) 91 ; » See : Ante, § 670. Pollard v. Shaafier, 1 U. S. (1 Dal.) « Fay V. Brewer, 30 Mass. (3 Pick.) 310 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 104 ; 303, 305. Toleman v. Portbury, L. R. 5 Q. ' Fav V. Brewer, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) B. 288, 396 ; s.c. 39 L. J. Q. B. 303, 205 ; 136 ; 33 L. T. 38 ; Baxters. Taylor, 1 Nev. & M. 18. Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573, See : Randall v. Cleaveland, 2 591 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570. Conn. 329 ; 589 ; Jesser v. Gififord, 4 Burr. 31, 41 ; Greene v. Cole, 3 Saund. 644 ; Queen's CoUege v. Hallett, 14 AttersoU v. Stevens, 1 Taunt. 554 LAITDS SUBJECT TO WASTE. [Book III. Sec. 6Y3. Same— Tenants in dower and curtesy.— Tenants in dower and curtesy, under the American doctrine, are entitled to cut timber and clear lands ; they are only restricted from clearing lands for cultivation when there is already sufficient cleared for that purpose ; ^ and it has even been held that such tenants may use timber for making staves and shingles, where that was the ordinary use and the only use to be made of such lands. ^ It is said in the case of Owen v. Hyde,^ that the dowager is not guilty of waste in cutting timber on one of the lots included in the dower estate, not necessary for her sup- port, but for purposes of profit, if the whole dower estate does not receive lasting injury thereby, and sufficient timber remains for the permanent use of the estate, although part of the timber is used for fencing on another- lot of the dower estate assigned to a different heir. Sec. 6T4. Same— Same— Permissive waste.— It is thought that a tenant in curtesy or in dower is answerable for waste committed by a stranger the same as other tenants for life,* and take their remedy over against him.^ Sec. 675. Kinds of lands subject to waste.— Voluntary waste may be committed upon cultivated fields, orchards, gardens, meadows, and the like, by using them contrary to the course of husbandry ;° or by tilling the land in an; improper and negligent manner so as to exhaust the soil." Waste is also committed upon wild or woodlands, under the English law, by converting them into cultivated lands, as well as by allowing tillable lands to be over- run by brush.^ 183, 198 ; B.C. 9 Eev. Eep. 731, ' See : Livingston v. Reynolds 3 744. Hill (N. Y.) 157 ; ' Loomis V. Wilbur, 5 Mas. C. C. 13. Keepers, etc., Harrow School v. ° Ballentine v. Poyner, 3 Hayw. Alderton, 3 Bos. & P. 86 : s.c (N. C.) 110. 5 Eev. Rep. 546 ; = 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 384 ; s.c. 37 Am. Doherty v. AUman, L. R. 3 App. Dec. 467. Cas. 709, 735, 733 ; s.c. 39 Moak's * See : Ante, § 671. Eng. Rep. 461 ; ^ Cook V. Champlain Transporta- Jervis v. Berridge, L. R. 8 Ch tion Co., 1 Den. (N. Y.) 91 ; 351; s.c. 5 Moak's Eng. Rep.581; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 54a ; Townsend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. 3 Inst. 145, 303. 338 ; s.c. 5 Rev. Rep. 313. = See : Post, § 687. » 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53b. Chap. XVI. § 676.] ACTS CONSTITUTING WASTE. 555 Sec. 6Y6. Acts constituting waste— General rule.— By the laws of England it is considered waste to cut timber,^ or to convert woodland into meadow or pasture or arable land. In this country these rules have been modified to some extent in reference to wild and uncleared lands leased or held for agricultural purposes.^ Whether a par- ticular act constitutes waste in this country is a question of fact to be determined by a jury under the directions of the court. It would seem that if the act does damage to the reversion, and is not one of the ordinary uses to which the land is properly put, it constitutes waste. In the settlement of the question of waste the usages and customs of the community in which the estate is situated are always to be taken into consideration, because an act which is waste in one part of the country may be a legit- imate use of the land in another.^ In England the cut- ting of timber is prima facie waste,* but in this country if trees or timber are cut for the purpose of preparing wild lands for cultivation,^ it is not waste,® unless the clear- ' Only waste to cut timber trees. — The rule is thus stated : "It is not waste to cut down trees which are not timber, either by law or by custom, or from the situ- ation in which they are placed, unless some special prejudice arises thereby to the inherit- ance. Nor is the proper and regular thinning of a wood for the purpose of improving the rest of the trees waste, provided it is done in a reasonable and husbandmanlike manner." Kerr on Injunctions, p. 240. ' McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114 ; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John. (N. y.) 337; B.C. 5 Am. Dec. 358; Kidd V. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9. 3 Drown v. Smith, 53 Me. 141, 143 ; Adams v. Brereton, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 124 ; Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 304; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18, 35 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 32 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 521 ; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 337 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 358; Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 601 ; Jackson v. Tibbits, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 341 ; Davis V. Gilliam, 5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 308, 311 ; Ci-ockett V. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 18U Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 721 ; Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293. " See : Post, § 677. ' Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 731. Thus it is said in Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 467, that the clearing of timber land for the purpose of cultivation, on part of the dower estate, where the land already cleared is old and worn out, and enough timber is left for permanent use, is not waste in this country, though it might be otherwise In Eng- land. * Ward V. Sheppard, 3 Hayw. (N. C.) 383 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 625 ; Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 467. 556 -A-CTS CONSTITUTING WASTE. [Book III. ing of land by the tenant is bad husbandry, and without pretense that it is for estovers.-^ A life tenant is not allowed to use wood to burn brick made from clay dug on the land where the bricks are made for sale ; ^ nor to cut and sell wood, for the reason that he has a right to cut wood only for fuel and repairs.^ In this country it is not waste in a tenant in curtesy or other tenant for life to change pasture land into woodland by suffering timber to grow thereon,^ as it is in England. In Eng- land all alterations by the tenant become waste, ^ as by converting two chambers into one, or pulling down a house and rebuilding it in a different fashion, even though the property is thereby made more valuable ; ® but according to the American rule actual danaages to the inheritance must be shown in order to establish waste.'' The following acts have been held to constitute waste: Cutting hop-poles,^ cutting and selling wood for other purposes than fuel and repairs,^ tearing boards from the buildings and destroying fences ; i" but the following acts are held not to be waste unless clearly shown to be prejudicial to the inheritance ; such as changing ^^ nature of property, ^2 erecting new houses, or opening a way on ' Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171. « City of London v. Greyme, Cro. ' Livingston v. Reynolds, 3 Hill Jac. 183 ; (N. Y.) 157 ; s.c. 36 Wend. (N. Graves' Case, H. 4 Jac. O. B.; Y.) 115. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.), p. 53, note 3 ; 3 Ward V. Sheppard, 3 Hay w. (N. 3 Eol. Abr. 815, pi. 17, 18. C.) 383 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 625 ; 'See: Post, § 685. Clemence v. Steere, 1 E.'I. 372; » Unless that is the ordinary method s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631. of managing tlie farm. « See : Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ; (7 Gray) 8, 10 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631. „ 450 ; 9 Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 372 ; Pynohon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631 ; Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am.Dec. 207. Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. Kestoriiig land to pasture land. —But 594; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 73. it will be vt^aste for a tenant in As for the purpose of paying cost life to cut timber trees on wood- of cutting firewood needed for land, not for use on the estate, the house, but done with the intention of Phillips v. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 restoring the land to the condi- . Allen) 115 ; tion of pasture land, in which Padelford v. Padelford, 34 Mass it was when the estate for life (7 Pick.) 153 ; commenced, and although it Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. would be good husbandry on 594 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 73. the part of the owner in fee to '« Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ; so restore it. s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. Clarke. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) " Pynchon v. Steams, 53 Mass. (11 , o ^- n ' P-?- n^A^^- ^^°' ^^°- Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307. '■bee: Post, § 685. « As converting arable land into Chap. XVI. g§ 677, 678.] FELLING TIMBER. 557 the premises/ removing crib erected by life tenant but not annexed to the freehold,^ or raising surface of land by depositing earth thereon.^ Sec. 677. Same— l. Felling timber — General rule.— The principal method of committing waste is by felling timber trees, except they are cut for estovers, because trees are not a part of the annual product of the land and belong to the owner of the inheritance. The tenant for life has only a qualified property in the trees on the estate, as far as they afford him shade and shelter, and the right to take the mast and fruit.* Consequently, by the old rule a life tenant is held to a strict account for waste in this matter, and confined to cut trees and timber for the purpose of firewood and repairs ; ^ if he takes more of the wood on the estate than is necessary to the enjoyment of his estate, to the injury of the remainder in fee, he is liable for waste. ^ Sec. 678. Same— Same- Amount to be taken.— A tenant woodland, meadow into past- ure, or the like, but it is held otherwise in England, because such alterations change the course of husbandry. Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 304; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 207 ; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John. (N. Y.) 327 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 258 ; Clemence v. Steere. 1 E. I. 273 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 258. ' Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307. - aemence v. Steere, 1 B. I. 272 ; s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 621. ' Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307. * 1 Inst. 53a. 5 Phillips V. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) 115; Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 123 * Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) 8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 : White V. Cuter, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 248; Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303, 307; Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594 s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 73 ; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631. Firewood for servants. — A tenant for life may not only cut fire- wood for his own house but also for that of his servant who cultivates the land, provided it can be done without injury to the inheritance (Gardiner v. Derring.l Paige Ch.(N. Y.) 573), unless indeed there be a scanty supply of timber. Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.)601. Firewood and fancing timber — Cut- ting elsewhere. — But a tenant with the privilege of cutting fii-ewood or fencing timber cannot obtain his firewood or fencing timber elsewhere, and then cut as much timber from the devised premises. Van Deusen v. - Young, 29 N. Y. 10 ; Clarke v. Cummings, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 340 ; Attorney-General v. Stawell, 3 Anstr. 593, 601 ; Gower v. Eyre, Ceo. Cooper's Chy. Rep. 156. Compare : Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 601. « Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill (S. C.) Eq. 377 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 72. 558 TIMBER— AMOUNT TO BE TAKEN. [Book III. for life of farmijig lands is entitled to cut down and use so much of the standing timber on the farm as may be necessary for fuel, and for making and repairing fences and buildings. In the case of wild and uncultivated lands, in this country, he is entitled to cut down so much of the timber as may be proper for the purpose of culti- vation, or for other purposes required in the reasonable cultivation or repair of the premises ; ^ provided, how- ever, that he does not materially lessen the value of the inheritance.^ To what extent wood may be' cut down in the case of wild lands without exposing the party to liability for waste is a question to be determined by a jury under the directions of the court. ^ The general rule in this country is that a tenant for life is liable to account for waste where he has cut down more of the wood on the estate than is necessary to the enjoy- ment of his estate, to the injury of the remainder in fee.* ' Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. • V3 Am. Deo. 721. ' Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y. 10; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John. (N. Y.) 237 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 258; Ward V. Sheppard, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 283 ; s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 625 ; Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 76. In Tennessee, the law concerning waste is construed liberally in favor of the widow. She may cut down timber for necessary uses, provided the estate be not injured, and enough be left for permanent use. Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467. Clearing tunber land for purposes of cultivation, on part of the dower estate, where the land already cleared is old and worn out, and enough timber is left for permanent use, is not waste in this country, though it might be otherwise in England. Owen IK Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467. ' Hickman v. Irvine, 3 Dana (Kv.) 133 ; Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John. (N. Y.) 237 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 358. Thus it has been said that a tenant for life does not exceed his rights by cutting and using timber to repair buildings on the land, and by selling a very moderate amount thereof, all the timber taken being wortli but a few hundred dollars, and an abundance being left for the full enjoyment of a privilege to take the timber for the use of a saw-mill, owned by the tenant for life and another. Dodd V. Watson, 4 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 48 ; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 577. But it is thought that this case cannot be safely followed as a precedent, because it contra- venes the general rule as to the extent and nature of the use to be made of the timber on the premises. See : Ante, % 677. Permanently injuring: inheritance. — It would be waste to cut down all the timber, so as perma- nently to injure the inheritance. Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John. (N. Y.) 237 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 358. Cleiring land by the tenant, which is bad husbandry, and without pre- tense that it is for estovers, is waste. Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171. " Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill (S. C.) Eq. 377 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 72 Chap. XVI. § 680.] KINDS OF TREES— LOCAL CUSTOM. 559 Thus it has' been held by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that cutting timber trees on woodland by the tenant for life not for the use of the estate, but with the intention of restoring the land to the condition of pasture land in which it was when the estate for life commenced, is waste, although it would be good hus- bandry in the owner in fee to make such alterations.^ Sec. 679. Same— Same— Particular kinds of trees. — Whe- ther cutting any particular kinds of trees for fuel is waste depends upon the situation and circumstances, and,, per- haps, in some instances, on the custom of the district of the country in which the land lies. Thus where oak- trees are abundant and are in common use for fuel, it is not waste to cut them for that purpose.^ In this country no act of a tenant for life amounts to waste unless it is or may be prejudicial to the inheritance.^ By the general law of England, oak, ash, and elm trees are timber, pro- vided they are of the age of twenty years and upwards ; provided also that they are not so old as not to have a reasonable quantity of usable wood in them, sufficient, according to some writers, to make a good post.* Sec. 680. Same— Same — Local custom as to tim.taer trees. — The question of what timber is depends first on the general law, that is, the law of the country, and con- sequently on the special custom of the locality.^ It has been said that the custom of the country may vary in two ways : first of all, you may have trees called timber by the custom of the country — beech in some countries, horn- Englishrnle— Doctrine of Pacldngton's Abraham v. Budd, 3 Freem. 54 ; Case.- It was held in Packing- Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves. 264 ; ton's Case, 3 Atk. 316, that the Famworth v. Ferrers, 6 Ves. 419 ; felling of three oaks growing Vane v. Barnard, 3 Vern. 738. in the avenues of a park was ' Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) waste, and the defendant was 8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Deo. 450. restrained from the further '^ Padelford v. Padelford, 24 Mass. cutting of trees in the avenues (7 Pick.) 153. or drive-ways, and also from ^ Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; cutting trees not of proper s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705. growth. The same doctrine is * Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 laid down in the following Eq. Cas. 303 ; s.c. 9Moak'sEng. cases • Rep. 819. Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640 ; ' Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 Gorges -y. Stanfleld, 3 Cro. Eliz. Eq. Cas.306 ; s.c. OMoak'sEng. 592 ; Rep. 819. 560 TIMBER IMPROPERLY CUT. [Book III. bean in others, and even white-thorn and black-thorn, and many other trees are considered timber in pecuHar locahties — in addition to the ordinary timber trees. ^ Then again, in certain locahties, arising probably from the nature of the soil, the trees of even twenty yeai's old are. not necessarily timber, but may go to twenty-four years, or even to a later period if necessary ; and in other places the test of when a tree becomes timber is not its age but its girth. ^ Sec. 681. Sams— Same— Timber im.properly out — Property in. — Where timber is severed from the land, by improperly cutting by the tenant for life, or is blown down, it be- longs to the owner of the first estate of inheritance.^ Where timber is cut by a stranger, it belongs to the reversionei" and not to the tenant ; and if carried away, the reversioner has a constructive possession, sufficient to maintain trespass de bonis asportatis against the stranger.* If the timber is cut by the tenant unneces- sarily, he acquires no title thereto, and cannot convey any to a purchaser.^ In a case where the court orders timber to be cut for any reason, the proper course is for the proceeds to be invested, and the income given to the successive owners of the estate, until there is an absolute, estate of inheritance, the owner of which is entitled to ' Honywood v. Honywood, L. E. 18 cut them himself, and to all Eq. Cas. 306 ; s.c. 9 Moak's Eng. fair and proper thinnings, and Rep. 819. to all coppices cut periodically Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 in the nature of crops. Eq. Cas. 308 ; s.c. 9 Moak's Eng. * Bulkley v. Dolbeare, 7 Conn. 333. Rep. 819. 6 Moores v. Wait, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) ' Bulkley v. Dolbeare, 7 Conn. 233 ; 104. Phillips-y.Allen,89 Mass. (7 Allen) Proceeds of trees not timber— Eng- ™1^? ! „ ,, lish rule. —In England, however, Clark V. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) a life tenant is entitled at law to 8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 ; the proceeds of trees which are Moores v. Wait, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) not timber cut by him, whe- 104 ; ther rightfully or wrongfully, Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. though liable, where wrong- 18 Eq Cas. 306 ; s.c. 9 Moak's fully cut, to an action of waste. Eng. Rep. 819. See : Bateman v. Hotchkin, 31 In Bateman v. Hotchkin, 31 Beav. Beav. 486; 488, a tenant for life, impeach- Pidgeley ■;;. Rawling, 3 Coll. 375 ; able for waste, was held entitled Honywood v. Honywood L R to have the benefit of the sale 18 Eq. Cas. 306 ; s.c. 9 Moak's ot all such trees felled by the Eng. Rep. 819. wind as he would be entitled to Chap. XVI. § 682.] OPENING MINES. rei the principal ; and the same rule applies to cases of equitable waste. ^ Sec. 682. Same— 2. Opening mines. — We have already seen that a tenant for life cannot dig for gravel, lime, coal, brick, earth, stone, and the like ; ^ unless, indeed, for the purpose of manuring the land. He cannot open new mines, but he may work mines already opened.^ Whether a tenant for life can work old abandoned mines or pits which have neither been worked nor prepared for work by the preceding owner of the fee, or which he has not worked, but has made preparation for working, there is some question.* It is thought, however, that in the case of minerals, the tenant for life may follow the vein already opened up, and, for the purpose of working it more advantageously, may even open new shafts and pits, and make other improvements.^ In working mines already ' Honywood v. Honywood, L. E. 18 Eq. Cas. 306 : s.c. 9 Moak'sEng. Eep. 819. ' Ante, § 583, et seq. See : Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171; Parkins v. Coxe, 3 Hayw. (N. C.) 339; Kidd V. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272 ; B.C. 53 Am. Dec. 621. 2 See : Ante, §§ 583-585 ; Lenfers v. Henke, 73 111. 405; s.c. 24 Am. Rep. 263 ; Hendrix v. McBeth, 61 Ind. 473 ; B.C. 28 Am. Rep. 680 ; Billings V. Taylor, 27 Mass. (10 Pick.)460 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 533; Reed v. Reed, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 248 ; Rockwell V. Morgan, 13 N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 384, 389 ; Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 460; Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 357, 361; Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 721 ; Irwin V. Covode, 34 Pa. St. 162 ; Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 323, 324 ; Findlay «.8mith,6 Munf .(Va.) 134; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733 ; Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.) 253-258 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528 ; 36 Hinley v. Russell, 13 Q. B., 573, 591 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570, 589; Knight V. Mosely, Amb. 176 ; Moyle V. Mayle, Owen 66 : Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410. ■Working coal mine. — It is said in the case of Crouch v. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.) 258 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528, that it is not waste for a tenant in dower of coal lands to take coal to any extent from a mine already opened, or to sink new shafts into the same veins, or to penetrate through a seam already opened and to dig into one lying under it. " Viner v. Vaughan, 2 Beav. 466 ; s.c. 4 Jur. 332. See : Ante. g§ 583-585. * See : Billings v. Taylor, 37 Mass. (10 Pick.) 460 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 533; Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 460; Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 357, 361; Lvnn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. 73 Am. Deo. 721 ; Irwin V. Covode, 24 Pa. St. 162 ; Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 783 ; Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.) 253 : s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528 ; Clavering v.Clavering, 2 Pr.Wms. 388. 562 PULLING DOWN BUILDINGS. [Book III. opened up, a tenant for life is entitled to cut timber from the premises for mining operations.-^ Sec. 683. Same— 3. In respect to buildings — Pulling down houses.— At common law a life tenant may be guilty of waste to houses or other buildings by pulling them down,^ or suffering them to be uncovered, whereby the timbers become rotten, and the structure otherwise in- jured ; but the bare suffering of buildings to become un- covered without the rotting of the timber is not waste. ^ At common law waste will also be committed by pulling down a house or other building, and rebuilding it in a different fashion or place, even though the value of the estate be enhanced thereby.* If the strict doctrine of waste is to be applied, the pulling down of a barn and building another eVen on the same farm, and on a more convenient site, at the distance of a mile and a half, might be considered waste, as destroying the evidence of identity.^ If, however, a house be uncovered when the tenant comes into possession, it is not waste for him to suffer it to fall down ; but it would be waste for him to pull it down, unless he rebuilt it.^ It has been said that if a lessee for life razes a building and erects a new one which is not so large as the former, it is waste ; but where an old house falls down and the tenant builds a new one, it need not be so large as the old one. Whilo a life tenant is not ordinarily allowed to tear down a building, yet if it has grown so ruinous as to be dangerous to life or limb, or to stock, he may do so with impunity.^ Sec. 684. Same— Same— Dilapidafions.— A tenant for life is under obligations to keep the tenant's house or other ' Neelv. Neel, 19 Pa. St., 333 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. Finrllay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) '^ Knoll's Case, P. 9 Jac. B. C; 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a, note 3. 2 Destruction of untenantable house.- * Graves' Case, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) Destruction by life tenant of 53, note 3 ; house not tenantable is waste, City of London v. Greyme, Cro. unless it be with the reversion- Jac. 183 ; er's consent ; and the life tenant 3 Rol. Abr. 815, pi. 17, 18. is liable even if the hbuse be ' Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573, torn down without his permis- 588 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570, 588. sion after his leaving the pre- " 1 Inst. 53a. mises. ' Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. 273 •, Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. 372 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. Chap. XVI. § 684.] DILAPIDATIONS— WHEN LIABLE. 563 buildings in repair, and the premises in as good condition as when he entered in possession of the estate, ordinary- wear and tear excepted,^ and inevitable accident only excepted.^ To the end that the tenant for life may keep the premises in repair, as we have already seen,^ he may cut and use the timber found upon the estate,* and is obliged to repair, even though there be no timber on the land.^ If the tenant for life fails to make requisite re- pairs he is liable for waste where he permits buildings to run to decay and become dilapidated,^ because a tenant for life sans waste is obliged to repair, unless the charge therefor be excessive.'^ Where there has been an extraordinary decay or de- struction of the buildings and large sums of money will be required to rebuild or repair ; and where the buildings on the lands are in a state of decay at the time the tenant came in possession, he will not be called upon to repair.^ ' See : Doe ex d. Thomson v. Amey, 13 Ad. & E. 476 ; s.o. 14 Eng. ri T 239 • Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Bam. & C. 299 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132 ; Torriano v. Young, 6 Car. &, P. 8 ; s.c. 35 Eng. C. L. 295 ; Ausworth V. Johnson, 5 Car. & P. 239 ; s.c. 24 Eng. C. L. 545 ; BwUock V. Dommitt, 6 T. R. 650 ; s.o. 8 Rev. Rep. 300. Eepairing house out of rents and pro- fits. — In the case of Cook v. Cholmondeley, 4 Jur. N. S. 837; s.c. 37 L. J. 826, where a tes- tator gave land to a tenant for life, with remainder over, and directed his trustees out of the rents and profits to keep the building in good repair, the court held that these buildings which were in bad repair at his death must be put in good re- pair out of the rents and profits. 2 Destruction of house hy mob.— Thus it has been held that a tenant is liable in an action on the case in the nature of waste, where a house is destroyed by a mob, when the tenant had. reason to beheve that such mob would attack the house on account of his using the same for the pur- pose of distributing a certain newspaper. See : White i\ Wagner, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 873 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 674. 3 See : Ante, §§ 655, 677, et seq. * WaUs V. Hmds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 356 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ; Miles V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 863 ; Wilson V. Edmonds, 34 N. H. (4 Post.) 517 ; Kearney v. Kearney, 17 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 504 ; Harder v Harder, 36 Barb. (N. y.) 409 ; Langv. Fitzsimmons, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 530 ; Harvey v. Harvey, 41 Vt. 373 ; Darcy v. Askwith, Hob. 334 ; Griffith's Case, Moore 69 ; Sticklehome v. Hatohman, Owen 48; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a. = 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53b, 54b. " Parteriche v. Powlet, 3 Atk. 383. See : Langley v. Furlong, 1 Dick. 815. ■' Parteriche v. Powlet, 3 Atk. 383. See : Ante, §§ 600, 601. 8 Fay V. Brewer, 30 Mass. (3 Pick.) 308; Wilson V. Edmonds, 34 N. H. (4 Post.) 517 ; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631. 564 ALTERATIONS WASTE WHEN. [Book III. Thus it has been said that if a life tenant receives a house in such a state as not to be repairable, or so dilapidated that the expense of repairing would be beyond the value of the house, he is not bound to repair and may leave it to its natural destruction. But if the house is such that repair would make it tenantable, he is bound to make the repairs.^ Sec. 685. Same — Same — Alterations. — According to the old rule, all alterations in a house or other buildings become waste when there cannot be a complete restora- tion at the end of the term ; ^ such as the removal of wainscots, the opening of windows or doors, or chang- ing the building from a dwelling to a store-room, or moving the location of the building ; ^ but, according to the modem and more liberal rule, actual damages must be shown in order to maintain an action.^ If the tenant changes the nature of the house by altering it injuriously, as by changing it into a warehouse with machinery for raising he'avy packages, it will be waste ; '' but if the alteration is not injurious either to the build- ing or to the title of inheritance, it will not be waste.® Thus any slight or immaterial change, such as the cut- ' ClemeBce v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ; City of London v. Greyme, Cro. S.C. 53 Am. Dec. G21. Jac. 183. » Graves' Case, 1 Co. Litt. (lOtlied.), ■* Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18, p. 53, note 3 ; 25 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; City of London v. Greyme, Cro. Jackson v. Andrew, 18 Jolin. (N. Jac. 182 ; Y.) 431 ; 3 Rol. Abr. 815, pi. 17, 18. McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114 ; ' Austin V. Stevens, 24 Me. 520 ; Jackson v. Tibbits, 3 Wend. (N. Walls V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Y.) 141 ; 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ; Young v. Spencer, 10 Barn. & C. Maunsell v. Hart, 11 Jr. Reports 145 ; s.c. 27 Eng. C. L. 70 ; Eq. 478 ; Doe ex d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5 Agate V. Lowenbein, 57 N. Y. Barn. & Ad. 507 ; s.c. 37 Eng. 604; C.L. 217; ^ Douglass V. Wiggins, 1 John. Ch. Phillips v. Smith, 14 Mees. & W (N. Y.) 435 ; 595. McManus v. Cooke, L. R. 35 Ch. ' Hasty v. Wheeler, 13 Me. (3 Fairf .) Div. 681, 695 ; s.c. 56 L. J. Ch. 434, 439 ; ^ ^^^ ' ^ , „ Douglass V. Wiggins, 1 John. Ch. Greene v. Cole, 3 Saund. 252 ; (N. Y.) 435 ; Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 588 ; Doe ex d. Daltonv. Jones, 4 Barn s.o. 66 Eng. C. L. 573 ; & Ad. 126 ; s.c. 24 Eng. C. L. Jackson v. Cator, 5 Ves. 688 ; s.c. 64 ; 5 Rev. Rep. 144 ; Bonnett v. Sadler, 14 Ves. 536 ; Graves' Case, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.), s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 341. p. 53, note 3. s Young v. Spencer, 10 Barn. & C. 145 ; s.c. 27 Eng. C. L. 70. Chap. XVI. § 687.] CHANGING COURSE OF HUSBANDEY. 565 ting of a door, or the opening of two rooms into one, will be permissible, in all cases where it will be possible for the premises to be restored to their original condition at the end of the term. Sec. 686. Same— Same— Erection of new buildings.— It is thought that the erection of new buildings, or the open- ing of new ways, on the premises by the life tenant will not be accounted waste, ^ even though cellars are dug under the houses, and drains are made on either side of the way.^ Particularly is this true if the building is an agricultural fixture which the tenant may remove according to the law of fixtures, as hereinbefore set out.* Ordinarily it is not an act of waste to erect such a build- ing, and the tenant may remove it at the expiration of the estate, if he can do so without materially injuring the inheritance.'* Sec. 687. Same — 4. Changing course of husbandry. — By the common law it was waste to convert one kind of land into another ; such as plowing up meadow or pasture lands, and sowing them to grain, and allowing agricult- ural lands to run to pasture lands, because it not only changes the course of husbandry, but also the evidence of the estate under the English law ; and for this the tenant was answerable to the remainderman.^ But in the improved state of agriculture, the old doctrine of waste respecting a change of the course of husbandry is no longer applied in England,^ and never was applicable to the new and unsettled condition of this country.^ ' Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn. 322, Dozier v. Gregory, 1 Jones (N. C.) 329 ; L- 100 : Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige Ch. (N. MoCullough v. Irvine, 13 Pa. St. Y.) 259 ; 438 ; Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. 273 ; Y.) 601 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. Jackson v. Tibbett, 3 Wend. (N. Compare : Conkliu v. Foster, 57 Y.) 341 ; 111. 104. Jones V. Chappelle, L. E. 30 Eq. ^ Darcy v. Askwith, Hob. 234 ; 539 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng. Eep. 2B1. Com. 282; 475. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a. « Pynclion v. Stearns, 52 Mass. (11 * Principals Harrow School v. AJ- Met.) 804 : s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 207 derton, 2 Bos. & P. 86 ; s.c. 5 ' See : Ante, bk. I., c. IV. Eev. Eep. 546. « Austin V. Stevens, 24 Me. 530 ; ' See : Jackson ex d. VanEensellaer Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Mass. v. Andrew, 18 John. (N. Y.) 499 ; 431 ; 566 FOULING LANDS— REMOVING MANURE. [BOOK IIL Whether it will be waste in this country to convert meadow or pasture land into plow lands, or woodland into farm land, and the like, is a question of fa'ct.^ The general rule in this country is that no 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 is largely governed by the usages and customs of the community.^ Seo. 688. Same — Same — ^Permitting laud to become foul. — A tenant for life is obliged to use the land in the manner required by the rules of good husbandry. Permitting pasture to become overrun with brush, while waste on the part of the tenant for life in England, will not be so in this country unless there be such neglect in cutting the brush as a man of ordinary prudence would not permit.^ Biit the renaoval of manures or grasses and the decaying of turf, which the rules of good husbandry require to be left upon the land to enrich it, will be waste in this country as well as in England.* The reason for this is that, in the absence of any particular agreement dispensing with that engagement, the tenant for life is bound to cultivate the estate in a husbandlike manner, and to consume the produce on it for its enrich- ment and preparation for future crops. ^ The manure Kidd V. Dennison, 6Baxb. (N. Y.) 334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467 ; 9. Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 398. " See : Crockett v. Crcxjkett, 3 Ohio * See : Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 St. 180 ; Gray) 8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 ; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ; Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. Y.) 601 ; 2 See : Proffltt v. Henderson, 39 Mo. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ; 335, 337 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. Webster v. Webster, 38 N. H. 18, " Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31 Pick.) 35 ; s.c. 66 Am. Deo. 705 ; 367, 371 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 269; McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. Plummer v. Plummer, 80 N. H. 114, 118 ; (10 Post.) 558 ; Sarles v. Sarles, 8 Sandf. Ch. (N. Middlebrook r. Corwin, 15 Wend. Y.) 601 ; (N. Y.) 169 ; Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Ohio St. Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. 180 ; Y.) 601 ; Jones V. Whitehead, 1 Pars. (Pa.) Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 363 ; 304 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550 ; Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ; Harris v. Mins, 30 W. R. 999. s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631 ; * Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) (N. Y.) 169, 171. Chap. XVI. §§ 689-692.] POWER TO COMMIT— FIRE. 557 made upon premises held for agricultural purposes be- longs to the premises and not to the tenant. ■" Sec. 689. Same— 5. Destruction of heirlooms.— In England, where some chattels are considered in law as part of the inheritance, and called heirlooms, the destruction of such chattels is waste. Thus if a tenant for life of a dove- house, vivary, or warren, kills so many of the doves, deer, fish, or game that there is not sufficient left for the stores, it is waste. ^ Sec. 690. Partial powers to comm.it waste. — There are some cases in which estates for life were granted, with partial powers to commit waste. In such cases the ten- ant will not be liable to impeachment for such waste, but a Court of Chancery will interpose to restrain the tenants from exceeding such powers. Sec. 691. Waste by ecclosiastics.—Ecclesiastical persons, such as bishops, rectors, parsons, vicars, and the like, being considered in most respects as tenants for life of the lands which they hold jure ecclesia, are prohibited from committing any kind of waste, and if they cut down trees for any other purpose than reparations they are punishable in ecclesiastical courts as well as by writ of prohibition.^ Sec. 692. Destruction by fire.- Under the head of per- missive waste, the tenant for life is answerable if the houses or other buildings on the premises are destroyed by fire from the negligence or carelessness of himself or his servants ; and he must rebuild within a convenient time at his own expense.* The life tenant is not liable, however, if the fire is the result of an accident, and he and his servants are free from fault.® ' Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. Sc R. rN Y.) 169 ; (Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 690. Lewis V. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 263 ; ^ 1 inst. 53a ; 3 Id. 304. s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550. See : Baxter v. Taylor, 1 Nev. & See : Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31 M. 13. Pick.) 367 : s.c. 33 Am. Dec. ^ See : Pos*, § 695, eif seg. 269 • * See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 81. Kittre'dge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503 ; « MauU v. Wilson, 3 Har. (Del.)443; s o 14 Am. Dec. 393 ; Barnard v. Poor, 38 Mass. (31 Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y.133,137; Pick.) 378 ; 568 WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT. [Book III. Sec. 69-3. WitliGut impeaehment 'of waste.— At common law a tenant for life, without impeachment of waste, had much the same character as a tenant in fee, except as to duration of the estate. He might cut down trees and open mines, and take the product for his own benefit.^ It was formerly the practice in England, where estates for life were expressly limited, to insert a clause that the tenant for life should have the lands "without impeach- ment of waste," which words were originally held to exempt the tenant for life from the penalty of the stat- utes of Marlebridge ; ^ hut it is laid down by Lord Coke, that the words "without charge or impeachment of waste " enabled the tenant for life to cut down timber and convert it to his own use. This will be otherwise, however, where the words are "without impeachment of any action of waste," for in that case the discharge extends to the action only and not to the property or the timber.^ In equity a more limited construction is given to the clause "without impeachment of waste," which allows to the tenant for life those powers only which a prudent tenant in fee would exercise. He can pull down or dilapidate houses, destroy pleasure-grounds, prostrate respecting the tenant's responsi- bility for accidental fires, as coming under the head of this species of waste. I am not aware that the statute of Anne has, except in one instance, been formally adopted in any of the states. It was intimated, upon the argument in the case of White V. Wagner, 4 Har. & J. (Md.)373, 381-385; s.c. 7 Am. Deo. 674, that the question had not been decided ; and conflict- ing suggestions were made by counsel. Perhaps the univer- sal silence in our courts upon the subject of any such respon- sibility of the tenant for acci- dental fires is presumptive evi- dence that the doctrine of per- missive waste has never been inti-oduced, and carried to that extent,in the common-law juris- prudence of the United States." ' Bowles' Case, 1 Co. 79a. 83b ; 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 220a. •2 See : Ante, § 670. ' 1 Inst. 23a. Lansing v. Stone, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 15 ; s.c. 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 199 ; Althorf V. Wolfe, 32 N. Y. 355, 366; Clark V. Foot, 8 John. (N. Y.) 431; Spaulding v. Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 30 Wis. 110 ; s.o. 11 Am. Rep. 550 ; FiUiter v. Phippard, 11 Q. B. 347 ; s.c. 63 Eng. C. L. 346. The statute of 6 Anne, c. 31, made tenants for life free from the consequence of accidental fires by declaring that no suit should be brought against any person in whose house or cham- ber any fire should accidentally begin ; prior to this statute tenants were liable, under the statute of Gloucester. See : Ante, § 670. Same — In tMs country. — As for per- missive waste. Kent says (4 Kent Com. ,13th ed. ,83) : ' ' there does not appear to have been any question raised, and judi- cially decided in this country, Chap. XVI. § 694.] EEMEDIES FOR WASTE. 509 trees planted for ornament or shelter/ but may not com- mit malicious waste so as to destroy the estate, which is called equitable waste ; for in that case the Court of Chancery will not only stop him by injunction, but will also order him to repair, if possible, the damages he has already done. Sec. 694. Hemedies for waste — 1. Writof estrepementand writ of waste.— At common law the remedies against waste were: (1) A prohibition commanding the sheriff to prevent its being done, technically called the writ of estrepement,^ and (2) a writ of waste after the injury had been done to recover the place wasted and treble damages under the statute.^ The writ of estrepement and writ of waste were at one time common in some of the states of the Union, as in Delaware,* Mary- land,^ and Pennsylvania, where the ancient writ of estrepement to prevent the commission of waste was in use on the revision of the civil code of Pennsylvania in 1835.^ Here and in England, alike, these writs have fallen into disuse, and are now seldom or never brought, having given way for the more easy and expeditious remedy, an action on the case, in the nature of waste at common law ; by which the plaintiff obtained satisfaction for the injury to the inheritance by the recovery of ' Packington v. Packington, 3 Atk. has fallen into disuse ; although 215 ; in a variety of other cases the Eolt V. Lord Somerville, 2 Eq. Court of Chancery exercises its Cas. Abr., tit. "Waste," pi. 8 ; conservative power to protect Vane v. Lord Barnard, 3 Vern. the subject of litigation from 739 ; s.c. 1 Salk. 161. waste, injury, or loss, pending ' Anderson's L. Diet. 417. a suit. Id. The writ of estrepement lay at com- ^ Ante, §670. mon law in aid of an action to See : Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's recover real property or to pre- Ch. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. vent an injury being done 350. thereto ; it was corrective as * Greenly v. Hall, 3 Har. (Del.) 9. well as preventive, for if the " Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. prohibition was violated the (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 850, plaintiff might recover dam- 356 ; ages Adams v. Brereton, 3 Har. & J. Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 124 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 2 Harr. Ent. 189, 800. 35()_ « In Virginia the action of waste at To prevent waste, pending a suit law is never brought. The to determine a title, the only remedy is exclusively in chan- remedy in England seems to be eery. 1 Robinson Pr. 560. the writ of estrepement, which 570 REMEDIES— INJUNCTION. [Book III. damages alone. ^ In some of the states resort is had to injunction from chancery, which performs the ofifice of a writ of estrepement.^ Sec. 695. Same— 2. Injunction.- At common law there was no prohibition against waste, against a life tenant deriving his interest from an act of the party. The remedy was by writ of estrepement and writ of waste.^ These writs are essentially obsolete, and the modern rule in this country, as well as in England, is to resort to the prompt and efficacious remedy by an injunction bill, to stop the commission of waste, when the injury would be irreparable ; or by a special action on the case in the nature of waste, to recover damages.* The Supreme Court of Maryland say, ' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 569; s.o. 18 Am. Dec. 350; McLaughlin v. Long, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 113 ; "White V. Wagner, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 373 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 674; Greene v. Cole, 3 Saund. 253, note 7 ; 3 Bl. Com. 327. ^ See ; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 560, 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350 ; 1 Robinson Pr. 560. Permissive waste — The remedy by an action on the case in the nature of waste has been held (Gibson V. WeUs, 4 Bos. & P. 390 : s.c. 8 Rev. Rep. 801 ; Heme v. Bem- bow, 4 Taunt. 764 ; Powys v. Blagrave, 4 DeG. M. & G. 448) not to lie for permissive vraste. If this last doctrine be well founded (and it may very reasonably be doubted), then recourse must be had, in certain cases, — as where the premises are negligently suffered to be dilapidated, — to the old and sure remedy of a writ of waste, and which, so far as it is founded either upon the common law or upon the statute of Glou- cester (6 Edw. I. , c. 5), has been generally received as law in this country, and is applicable to all kinds of tenants for life and years. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 79. It has been said that waste would not lie at common law against the lessee for life or years ; for the lessor might have restrained him by cove- nant or condition. Shrews- bury's Case, 5 Co. 13 ; 3 Inst. 399. But Mr. Reeves insists that the common law provided a remedy against waste by all tenants for life and for years, and that the statute of Glou- cester only made the remedy more specific and certain. Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) 11, 73, 184. 3 See : Ante, § 604. ''Dickinson v. Mayor, etc., 48 Md. 583; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 492. Cutting of line trees will be re- strained by injunction if of suf- ficient importance. Relyea v. Reaver, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 547 ; s.c. affirmed sub nom. Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 133. In Maryland, the Court of Equity will not grant an injunction to restrain a party from cutting trees, where it appears that they are of no particular value, and with adequate compensa- tion for their destruction by an action at law. Powell v. Rol- lins, 63 Md. 239. But it is thought that this case will not be followed elsewhere. The difficulty of the court in ade- quately compensating the owner for the value of trees cut in the settled portion of our Chap. XVI. § 696.] CHAEACTER OF REMEDY. 5^1 in the case of Duvall v. Waters/ that the whole subject of waste seems to have passed almost together from the cognizance of the courts of common law to that of the Court of Chancery, and the shifting of this matter so entirely from the one jurisdiction to the other may be attributed to the nature of the injury requiring redress ; to the different constitutions of the tribunals ; and to their peculiar modes of proceeding. Waste is a wrong which cannot always be duly estimated and remunerated in damages ; it is an injury which requires to be met, in its onset or earliest approaches, by a strong and decisive preventive remedy, acting with a promptness almost amounting to surprise, and yet affording to the party restrained a speedy hearing. No adequate remedy of this kind, it is evident, can be obtained from a court of common law, open only at short intervals during the year, acting from term to term, and limited to a given set of technical forms of proceeding. Hence it is that the remedy has been so constantly, in modern times, sought in the Court of Chancery, which is always open, con- stantly accessible, and is capable of moving with an energy and dispatch called for by the emergency, and suited to the peculiar nature of the case. Sec. 696. Same— Same— Character of the remedy.— The modern remedy in chancery, by injunction, is broader than the old remedy at law. Equity will interpose in many cases, and stay waste, where there is no remedy at law. If there was an intermediate estate for life, be- tween the lessee for life or the remainderman or rever- sioner in fee, the action of waste would not lie at law ; for it lay on behalf of him who had the next immediate estate of inheritance.^ The remedy by injunction is generally limited to those cases in which the title is clear and undisputed ; ^ privity of estate or of contract not ap- pearing between the parties, or the complaint not showing country is apparent. Am. Dec. 350. See : Stanford v. Hurlstone, L. R. '1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53b, 54a. 9 Ch. App. 116 ; s.c. 8 Moak's ^ See : Storm v. Mann, 4 John. Ch. Eng. Rep. 775. (N.Y.)21. > 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Pillsworth v. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51. 572 WHEN GRANTED. [Book m. a clear legal or equitable title, the question will not in- tervene.^ EC. 697. Same— Same— WTien granted.- In general, an injunction may be obtained in this country, as in Eng- land, to stay waste in all cases where an action would lie at common law,^ whether there be any privity of title or not.^ And an injunction may be granted where no ac- count of damages could be claimed, or where the waste done is so insignificant that there could be no recovery of damages at law.* An injunction will also be granted in special cases, as where the party committing the waste is insolvent,^ or where some of the heirs have filed their bUl in court against the rest, to obtain a partition accord- ing to the act to direct descent, and one of the heirs, who is in possession, is committing waste ; and upon a rep- resentation of the fact by the trustee to make sale of lands, for the purpose of effecting a partition, he wUl be restrained by injunction.^ An injunction will be granted against a life tenant, also, where the tenant affects the inheritance in an unreasonable and an unconscientious manner, even though the lease be granted without im- peachment of waste." Thus it has been held that an injunction will lie to restrain a tenant tilling a farm con- trary to the established rotation of crops on it, and con- trary to the usage of that part of the country.® Injunc- ' See : Boulo v. New Orleans, M. & 5 Rev. Rep. 546 ; T. R. Co., 55 Ala. 480, 488 ; Umveraities of Oxford v. Richard- Falls Village W. P. Co.'y. Tibbetts, son, 6 Ves. 706. 31 Conn. 16.5 ; ' Smallman v. Onions, 3 Bro. C. C. Roath V. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 533 ; 631. s.c. 52 Am. Dec. 352 ; « DuTall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Echelkamp v. Schrader, 45 Mo. Old.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350; 505; Clarke v. Clarke, MS., January' Irwin V. Dixion, 50 U. S. (9 How.) 24, 1882. 10,28; bk. 13L. ed. 25, 33. 'See: Kane v. Vanderburgh, 1 ' DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. John. Ch. (N. Y.) 11 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 350. Perrot v. PeiTot, 3 Atk. 94 ; Ordinary use and cultivation will Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Bro. C. C. not be inliibited by injunction. 138 : Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Vane v. Barnard, 2 Vern. 738 ; (JId.) 568 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350. Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 264 ; See : Ante, § 687. Briggs v. Earl of Oxford, 16 Jur. 5 See : Post, § 700. 53. « Duvall V. Waters. 1 Bland's Ch. s "Wilds v. Layton, 11 Del. Ch. 226 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350; s.c. 12 Am. Dec. 91. Keepers, etc., Harrow School v. Injudicious husbandry, or tilling the Alderton, 2 Bos. & P. 86 ; s.c. land in an unhusbandmanlike Chap. XVI. §§ 698-700.] PERMISSIVE WASTE. 573 tion is a remedy to prevent an imminent loss where there is no other adequate redress ; consequently it is only under special circumstances will the court grant an in- junction where waste has been committed by a tenant to prevent his removing timber which had been cut. Ordi- narily, it will only interfere to prevent or stay future waste ; ^ but a bill for account for past waste may be allowed in a proper case to prevent multiplicity of suits. ^ Sec. 698. Same — Same— Same— Threat to com.mit waste. — A mere threat on the part of the tenant for life to commit waste will furnish a sufficient foundation for an injunc- tion being granted before any waste has actually been done.^ Sec. 699. Same— Same— Same— Permissive waste.— A court of equity will not interfere in case of permissive waste by the tenant for life at the instance of the remainder- man or reversioner, either by injunction,* or give satis- faction against an equitable tenant for life.^ Sec. 100. Same— Same— Privity of title.— In England an injunction to stay waste will be granted where there is a subsisting privity of title or contract admitted by the answer, or an uncontroverted legal or equitable title in the plaintiff; but not where the bill states that the defendant relies upon an alleged adverse title in himself, or where the plaintiff's title is positively denied by the manner, or bad farming merely, Hannay i'. MoEntire, 11 Ves. 54. however, has been held not to ■■ Warren u. Rudall, lJohn.& H. 1 ; constitute an injury to the in- s.c. 39 L. J. Ch. 543. heritance for which an action Compare : CaldwaU v. Baylis, 2 for waste would lie, in a case Meriv. 408. containing exactly the same * See : Powys v. Blagrave, 4 DeG. facts as in the principal case, so M. & G. 448 ; s.c. 24 L. J. Ch. far as the nature of the injury 143; to the soil complained of is con- Exp. Godfrey, Warren v. Rudall, cemed. 1 John. & H. 1 ; s.c. 29 L. J. Ch. See:Richardst;. Torbert, SHoust. ^S^^! , „ ,. „„ . ,._ (Del ) 172. Caldwall v. Baylis, 2 Meriv. 408. ' Watson V. Hunter, 5 John. Ch. ' Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (N Y.) 169 ; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 295. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350; '- See- Post % 703. Hvighlett v. Harris, 1 Del. Ch. ' See: Duvall ■y.Waters,lBland's Ch. 349 ; s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 104. (Md)569; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350; "Waste, who may have action for.^ Gibson v. Smith, 3 Atk. 183 ; At the time the waste is com- Coffin V. Coffin, Jac. 70 ; mitted, the party must have the 574 PRIVITY OF TITLE. [Book III. It appears to be even yet a fixed rule of the Court of Chancery of England that the granting of an injunction to stay waste must depend either upon the fact of there being a privity of title or contract acknowledged by the answer ; or an unquestionable legal or equitable title in the plaintiff, as where a purchaser files a bill for a spe- cific performance of his contract, suggesting that the de- fendant was proceeding to cut timber, etc., an injunction may be granted, if the contract be stated and admitted. For if the bill states and admits that the defendant as- serts and relies upon what he alleges to be a valid adverse title in himself, the plaintiff thereby states himself out of court ; or if the defendant in his answer positively de- nies the plaintiff's title, the injunction will be refused, or, having been granted, will, on the coming in of such an answer, be dissolved.-^ In this country the prevailing rule is that privity of title or contract is unnecessary to support an injunction against waste ; and that it will be granted whenever an action of waste would lie at com- mon law, whether there is privity of title or not, and in other cases where such an action could not be brought ; ^ but a legal title in the plaintiff is necessary to support an action of waste.* title to the land, to sustain his Buvall v. "Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. action for the injury. (Md.) 569; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350 ; Hughlettt). Harris, 1 Del. Ch. 349; = Duvall v. "Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. s.c. 12 Am. Dec. 104. (Md.) 569; s. c. 18 Am. Dec. 350 ; This writ is treated as a rem- Woodson v. Good, 6 "Watts & S. edy against waste, but where (Pa.) 169 ; there is no privity of title be- Wyant v. Deiffendafer, 3 Grant tween the parties in the action , (Pa.) 334. to which it is auxiliary, the in- In Peimsylvaiiia, it is held that a jury which it seeks to prevent cestui que trust after attaining Ls, in chancery acceptation, full age, can maintain an action trespass rather than waste. for waste against the trustee, Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. without first obtaining a con- (Md.)569; S.C. 18Am. Dec. 350. veyance of the legal title. ' DuvaU V. "Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Wyant v. Deiffendafer, 3 Grant (Md.) 569; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 350 ; (Pa.) 834. And in Woodson «. Stoi-m V. Mann, 4 John. Ch. (N. Y.) Good, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 169, an 21 ; equitable tenant for life was Norway v. Eowe, 19 Ves. 147 ; considered liable in an action Smith V. Collyer, 8 Ves. 89 ; of waste at the suit of a holder PiUsworth V. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51. of the legal title in trust. Denial of tie plaintiff's title, how- ^ Whitney v. Morrow, 34 Wis. 644 • ever, in the answer does not GiUett v. Treganza' 13 Wis! 473 ;' warrant the dissolution of an Loudon v. Warfield, 5 J. J. Marsh. injunction against waste pend- (Ky.) 196. ing the suit. Chap. XVI. § 702.] FOE WHOM GRANTED. B7l Sec. TOl. Same— Same— in favor of whom granted. — An injunction against a life tenant to stay waste will be granted in favor of a remainderman^ or reversioner, ^ where there is an intervening estate for life ; ^ in favor of any one entitled to a contingent or executory estate of inheritance ; * in favor of trustees to preserve a con- tingent remainder before the contingent remainderman has come in esse ; ^ and it may be granted in favor of a child en ventre sa mere.^ Sec. T02. ^ame— Same— Against whom granted. — An in- junction to stay waste may be granted against a tenant for hfe holding the estate under either a deed or devise, and may also be granted, on proper conditions shown, as between tenants in common'' or joint tenants and co- parceners against malicious destruction, or when the ' Eemamderman has right to stay waste on premises in which he is interested. Miles v. MHes, 32 N. H. 147 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 362. But a remain- derman cajinot maintain action for waste after taking lease from the tenant of the preced- ing estate for years, for his full term, for part of the land, as to the part of the land so leased, whether the waste was com- mitted before or after the lease, for the estates to that extent are thereby merged; so, though the lease reserves to the lessor the right to erect buildings on the leased premises, and pi'o- vides for the payment of rent, if there is no reservation of a right of re-entry for non-pay- ment. Pynchon v. Steams, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 207. 2 Action of waste ty reversioner against hfe tenant is provided for by statute in Rhode Island, and the liability of the hfe tenant there- in, though very stringent, is to be fairly and reasonably en- forced. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 372 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. 2 Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350, 357; Farrant v. Lovel, 3 Atk. 723 ; Bewick v. Whitfield, 3 Pr. Wms. 268, note. " Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350, 357; Hayward v. StilUngfleet, 1 Atk. 433; Bewick v. Whitfield, 3 Pr. Wms. 268. note. 5 Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 569 ;£.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350, 357 • Garth' V. Cotton, 3 Atk. 754. » DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 350, 357; Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 211. ■> Tenants in common are liable to co- tenant for waste. See : Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's Heirs, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 138; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 387 ; Smith V. Sharpe, 1 Busbee(N. C.) L. 91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Deo. 574 ; Hancock v. Day, 1 McM. (S. C.) Eq. 69; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 293 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill (S.C.) Eq. 377 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 73. Such as to prevent one tenant in common, in possession, from cutting down timber growing on the land, and not wanted for the necessary use of the farm. Hawley v. ('lowes, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 123. 67G AGAINST WHOM GRANTED. [Book III. tenant committing the waste is insolvent or is occupying tenant with the plaintiff ; ^ and it has been said that an injunction will lie to restrain a tenant by elegit from till- ing a farm contrary to the established rotation of crops on it, and contrary to the usage of that part of the country ; ^ but not to prevent waste in case of tenants in common, or coparceners, or joint tenants, for the reason that they have a right to enjoy the estate as they please.^ An injunction will also be granted against a tenant for life without impeachment for waste ; * against a mortgagee of a life tenant in possession.^" An injunc- tion may also be obtained in respect to equitable waste against a tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct.^ It appears that the English Court of Chancery had steadily confined itself in granting relief against waste to those cases only where there was some subsisting priv- ity of title or contract between the parties until about the year 1785, since which time it has gone one step further, and granted injunctions against strangers to stay trespass in strong cases of destruction or irreparable mischief ; or where the irreparable mischief might be completely effected before any trial could be had as to the controverted right. But at that point it seems to have come to a stand ; not, however, without expressing a regret that its jurisdiction had not extended so far as to protect real estate from waste and injury pending a controversy about the title. There is no reason to doubt that the powers of the courts in this country in granting injunctions have always been considered as in all re- ' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. ^ See : Hihn v. Peck, 18 Gala. 640 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350- Hole v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589 ; s.c. Smallman v. Onions, 3 Bro. C. C. C Rev. Rep. 195. 631; " Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Twort V. Twort, 16 Ves. 138 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. Hole V. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589 ; s.c. 350 ; 6 Rev. Rep. 195. Bernard's Case, Free. Ch. 454. EquitiUe waste. — As betvreen ten- » See : Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's ants in common, however, an Ch. (Md.)o69; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. injunction will not be granted 350 ; against pure equitable waste. Farrant v. Lovel, 8 Atk. 723 ; Hole V. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589 ; s.c. Humphreys v. Harrison, 1 Jac. 6 Rev. Rep. 195. & W. 581. ° Wilds V. Layton, 1 Del. Ch. 32G ; " Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 91. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. Compare : Richards v. Torbert, 350 ; 3 Houst. (Del.) 173. Abraham v. Bubb, 3 Freem. 53. Chap. XVI. §§ 70g, 704.] BILL FOR ACCOUNTING. 57';- spects co-extensive with those of the Chancery Court of England.^ Sec. T03. Same— Same— Bill for accounting. — Full relief in equity is given to prevent the multiplicity of suits, where an injunction has issued to restrain a wrong; con- sequently when a bill for an injunction to stay further waste is granted, and waste has already been committed, the court, to prevent double suits, will decree an account and satisfaction for what is past, and not oblige the plaint- iff to bring an action at law, as well as a bill in equity ; ^ but such decrees for the part are only given as an incident to the injunction to obtain which the plaintiff was under a necessity of going into chancery ; conse- quently it may be regarded as a general rule, to which there are few exceptions, that when no injunction is or can be asked for or granted, a bill to have an account of past waste, and nothing more, cannot be sustained, the proper remedy being at law.^ Sec. Y04. Same— 3. Forfeiture of estate. — By the early English law, estates for life were liable to forfeiture by waste as well as by alienation.^ The provision in the ' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. restrain waste upon land cov- (Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350. ered by the lien of liis judg- As to the extent of the powers of inent, and pending the injunc- the English Court of Chancery, tion, purchases the land at the see : sheriff's sale, cannot recover Jones V. Jones, 3 Meriv. 173; for the waste committed prior Norway v. Eowe, 19 Ves. 147 ; to his purchase. Crookford v. Alexander, 15 Ves. Hughlett v. Harris, 1 Del. Ch. 138 ; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 44 ; 349 ; s.c. 13 Am. Deo. 104. Courthope V. Mapplesden, lOVes. ' Duvall -y. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. 290 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. Smith ». Collyer, 8 Ves. 89 ; 350 ; Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. 305 ; Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. Mitchell r. Dors, 6 Ves. 147 ; 262. Pillsworth V. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51. Damages— How ascertained.— Dam- ' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. ages must be assessed in action (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. of waste for the place wasted 350 ; over and above the value of the Hughiett V. Harris, 1 Del. Ch. place. 349 ; s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 104. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ; But this principle is limited to s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. cases where a right to relief ex- * 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 251a ; ists for injury already done, in- 3 Bl. Com. 374 ; dependently of the injunction to Glanv.,lib. 9, c. 1. prevent future injury. Ac- See : Ante, ^ 590, et seq. cordmgly a judgment-creditor Waste forfeits part of premises who sues out an injunction to wasted, but by the destruction 37 578 FORFEITURE OF ESTATE. [Book III. statute of Gloucester/ giving, by way of penalty, the forfeiture of the place wasted and treble damages, may be considered as imported by our ancestors, with the whole body of the common and statute law then exist- ing, and applicable to our local circumstances ; in some of the 'states the provisions as to forfeiture of the prem- ises wasted, and treble damages, have been incorpo- rated into the body of the law by special statutory enact- ments. Kent says^ that, "so far as the provisions of the statute are received as law in this country, the re- covery in an action for waste, for waste done or per- mitted, is the place wasted, and treble damages," but that ' ' the writ of waste has gone out of -use, and a spe- cial action on the case, in the nature of waste, is substi- tuted ; and this latter action, which has superseded the common-law remedy, relieves the tenant from the penal consequences of waste under the statute of Gloucester. The plaintiff, in this action upon the case, recovers no more than the actual damages which the premises have sustained. " ^ of a dwelling-house the whole ' See : Paxker v. Chambliss, 12 Ga. premises are forfeited. • 235 ; Clemenoe v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272 ; Williams v. Lanier, 1 Busbee s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. (N. C.) L. 30 ; ' 6 Edw. I., c. 5. Linton v. Wilson, 1 Kerr (N. B.) See : Ante, § 670. 239, 240. 2 4 Kent Com. (18th ed.) 81. CHAPTER XVII. ESTATE BY CURTESY. Section I. Origin and requisites. Section II. Nature, incidents, and duties. Section III. Barring curtesy. Section IV. Curtesy under statute. Section V. Wlio may be tenants by curtesy. Section VI. What property subject to curtesy. Section VII. What property not subject to curtesy. Section I. — Origin and Requisites. Estate by curtesy — Introduction. Definition of estate by curtesy. Origin of estate by curtesy — Littleton's view. Same — Early origin of the estate. Same — Adopted from northern nations. Curtesy in England. Same — Curtesy in gavelkind lands. Curtesy in the United States. Same — Under married women's acts. Bands of curtesy. Same — 1. Curtesy initiate. Same — 3. Curtesy consummate. Same— 3. Equitable curtesy. Common-law reqtdsites of curtesy. Same — 1. Lawful marriage. Same — Same — Lex loci governs. Same — Same — Celebration of ceremony. Same — Same — ^Void and voidable marriages. Same — 2. Seisin of wife. Same — Same — What is sufficient seisin. Same — Same — Seisin in fact or in deed. Same — Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule. Same — Same — Seisin in law. Same — Same — Same — Reasons for relaxing rule. Same — Same — Same — Extent to which rule relaxed. Same — Same — Seisin by descent cast. Same — Same — Seisin at time of death. Same — Same- — Possession by coparcener. Sec. 733. Same — Same — Possession by co-tenant. 579 Sec. 705. Sec. 706. Sec. 707. Sec. 708. Sec. 709. Sec. 710. Sec. 711. Sec. 713. Sec. 718. Sec. 714. Sec. 715. Sec. 716. Sec. 717. Sec. 718. Sec. 719. Sec. 720. Sec. 721. Sec! 723. Sec. 723. Sec. 734. Sec. 735. Sec. 736. Sec. 737. Sec. 728. Sec. 739. Sec. 730. Sec. 731. Sec. 733. 580 CHARACTER OF ESTATE. [Book IIL Same — Same — Possession by wife's tenant. Same— Same— Same— Lease for life before marriage. Same— Same— Same— Receiving rents and profits. Same— Same— Possession by Imsband— Kentucky doctrine. Same— Same— Same— Possession by husband's grantee. Same — Same — Seisin by guardian. Same— Same — Equitable title and seisin. Same — Same— Same — Exception to the rule. Same — Same — Actual entry. Same — Same — Same — ^Wild, waste, and uncultivated lands. Same — Same — Time of seisin. Same — Same — Adverse possession. Same — Same — Remainder and reversion. Same — 3. Issue of marriage. Same — Same — Change of rule by statute. Same — Same — a. Bom alive. Same — Same — Same — Degree of development and vitahty. Same — Same — Same — Death of issue. Same — Same — b. In lifetime of wife. Same — Same — c. Be capable of inheriting. Same — Same — Same — Seisin by wife. Same — Same — Same— Estate devised to wife and heirs. Same — Same — Same — Gives second husband curtesy. Same — Same — Same — Wife's attainder. Same — Same — d. Essentials need not coincide in point of time. Same — 4. Death of wife. Same — Same — Civil death and bigamy of wife. Section TO.^. Estatebycurtesy—Introduetion.— The second estate for life, known to the common law, is that which a husband acquired in his wife's lands by having issue by her born alive and capable of inheriting, for before issue born the husband had only an estate during the joint lives of himself and his wife.^ This interest in the wife's lands is called an "estat e by the curtesy of England, " or more commonly an " estate by curtesy. " This estate, as we shall see hereafter when we come to consider its nature,^ partakes more of the character of an estate by descent than of one by purchase,^ as it accrues to the husband by operation of law upon the death of the wife.* Sec. 706. Deflmtion of estate by curtesy .—An estate by ' 1 Inst. 351a. Pembertonv. Hicks, 1 Bmn.(Pa.) ' See : Post, section II. , this chapter. 1 . » Watson V. Watson, 18 Conn. 75, ■• 1 Inst. 18b, 106 ; 77, 83 ; 4 Kent Com. (18th ed.) 373. Sec. 734. Sec. 735. Sec. 736. Sec. 787. Sec. 738. Sec. 739. Sec. 740. Sec 741. Sec. 743. Sec 743. Sec 744. Sec 745. Sec 746. Sec. 747. Sec. 748. Sec 749. Sec 750. Sec 751. Sec 753. Sec 753. Sec 754. Sec. 755. Sec 756. Sec 757. Sec 758. Sec 759. Sec , 760. Chap. XVII. § 707.] ORIGIN— LITTLETON'S VIEW. 581 curtesy, or tenancy by curtesy of England, is an estate thrown upon the tenant by operation of law,^ and consists in the interest to which a husband is entitled, upon the death of his wife, in the land and tenements of which she was seized in possession at the time of their marriage, or became possessed of during coverture,^ in fee-simple or in fee-tail, where issue was born ^ alive * during such covert- ure,^ which might have been capable of inheriting the estate,® even though such issue dies before the death of the wife.'' Tenancy by the curtesy has been said to have no moral foundation, and for that reason is properly called ' ' tenancy by the curtesy of England ; " that is, an estate by the favor of the law of England.^ Lord Littleton says : ' ' The husband is called tenant by the curt- esy of England, because this is used in no other realm., but England only. " ^ This, however, is a mistake, as we shall see further on.^" Sec. tot. Originof estate by the ourtesy— Lord Littleton's view.— That the interest of a husband in his deceased wife's lands, known as an estate by the curtesy, was established in the English law at a very early period, is admitted by all ; " but there has been much diversity of opinion among writers as to whether this estate was originally an Eng- lish institution, or an importation. Lord Littleton says that the husband "is called tenant by the curtesy of England, because this is used in no other realm, but in England only," ^ and Sir William Blackstone, following Lord Littleton, attributes the introduction of this estate to Henry I.^^ The estates of tenants by the curtesy and ' See : Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. Buokworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & 75, 83 ; P. 653, note. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 18b, 29a ; ' Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 238, 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 373 ; 235 ; Litt ^35 Litt., §§ 29a, 35. « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. « Banks v. Sutton, 2 Pr. Wms. 703 ; ' See • Post S, 747 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 158. 4 See ': Post, § 749.' ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a. ' A bastard legitimized by subsequent '» See : Post, §§ 708, 709. marriage wiU, in some states, " See : 3 Bl. Com. 126, 137 ; cast upon tlie husband and 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 139, father an estate by the curt- 140 ; See : Post, § 758. " Litt., § 35. « See : Post, § 753 ; " 3 Bl. Com. 136. 2 Bl. Com. 136 ; In treating of some early statutes, 582 EAELY ORIGIN OF ESTATE. [Book III. tenants by dower ^ seem to have originated at the same time, and to have borne some relation to each other in their origin, for the claim of the wife in one case, and of the husband in the other, were founded on equal consid- erations in law and in policy. Thus it is laid down by Littleton that a seisin in fee, in fee-tail general, or as heir in special tail, was the proper estate in the wife to make her husband tenant by the curtesy, and in the husband to give a title of dower. ^ Sec. 708. Same— Early origin of the estate.— It is now set- tled beyond controversy that the estate by curtesy is not a species of property peculiar in the English law. It had its origin prior to the invasion of Britain by Caesar. This estate existed with some modifications, it is true, in the ancient Almain laws, and was known in ancient Ger- many, Ireland, Normandy,^ and Scotland.* Erskine says^ that in Scotland "the right of curtesy or curiality has been received by our most ancient customs." It is now conceded by all that the estate is not of feudal origin ; ^ indeed, it is laid down expressly in the Book of Feuds, that the husband did not succeed to the feud of the in his " History of the English of Scotland and Ireland, though Lav7," Reeves mentions among it seems to be conceded that it others the statutum pro tenen- takes its name from curtis, a tibusper legem Anglice, which court, rather than from any he says bears evident marks of peculiar regard to husbands in an earlier period than the reign the English law. of Edward II. 2 Bl. Com. 126 ; S Reeves' Hist. Eng. L.(2d ed.)315. Wright, Ten. 193, 193. ' See : Post, bk. III., c. XVIII. Mr. Barrington says the word is '3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) clearly derived from the French 834. word courtesie, and it is called '.InKormandy.— It is said by Cou- curtesy of England, to distin- stomier, c. 119, that the estate guish it from a very similar lasted in Normandy only dur- right by the Norman law. ing the widowerhood of the Stat. 440. husband. » Institutes 380. ' 1 Co. Litt, (19th ed.) 30a ; « By that law, though, as soon as a Hale, Hist. Com. L. 180 ; son was born the father was Hen. III., m. 3 ; admitted, in respect to the es- Mir., c. 1, § 3 ; tate, as one of the pares curice, Wright, Ten. 193. and did homage* for the same English writers on.— Wooddeson in alone, while prior to that hus- his lectures, and Christian in band and wife did the homage his notes to Blaokstone, con- together, siderit of English origin, and 2 Bl. Com. 126, 127; thence transferred into the laws Wright, Ten. 193. * As to homage, see : Ante, § 210. Chap. XVII. § 709.] ADOPTED FROM NORTH. 583 wife, without a special investiture.^ Sir Martin Wright ' adopts the opinion of Craig/ who declares that curtesy was originally granted out of respect to the former mar- riage, and to save the husband from falling into poverty and coming to want. He deduces curtesy from one of the rescripts of the Emperor Constantine.* Sec . 709 . Same— Adopted from northern nations.— Modern research has demonstrated that the law which gives to the husband who has issue born alive during coverttire a life estate in the lands of his deceased wife, prevailed among all the northern nations. When the customs of the Normans were reduced to writing, this law was inserted among them.^ It is said by Horne,^ that this custom was established in England by King Henry I., and this is thought by some to be highly probable, because we find a full account of it in a treatise by Glanville,' written in the reign of King Henry 11.^ ■ See : Craig, Jus. Feud., lib. 2. ' Wright, Ten. 194. ' Wright says, toe. cit. , that " tenan- cies by the curtesy, or per legem terra, thougli so called, as if they were peculiar to England, were known not only in Scot- land, but in Ireland, and in Normandy also ; and the like law or custom is to be found among the ancient Ahnain laws ; and yet it doth not seem to have been feudal, nor doth its original anywhere satisfac- torily appear. Some English writers ascribe it to Henry I. ; but Nathaniel Bacon calls it a law of counter tenure to that of dower, and yet supposes it as ancient as from the time of the Saxons, and that it was rather restored by Henry I. than introduced by him. But as there are no notices of this curtesy among the laws of the Saxons, or among those we have of Henry I., I shall pro- pose Mr. Craig's conjecture as the most rational I have met with, who is so far from think- ing it feudal that he is of opin- ion that the original of it is ex jure civili non incommode deduci pot&t ; ex Constantiai enim Rescripti (says he') sanc- tum est, ut haereditatis mater- nse Pater usuf ructum filii pro- prietatem." * Craig, Jus. Feud., lib. 2 ; Dig. 23, § 40 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 28 ; Wright, Ten. 194. 5 As given in the Latm translation of the Grand Coustomier, this law was as follows : Consue- tude enim in Normannia, ex antiquitate approbata, quod si quis uxorem hkbuerit ex qua haeredem aliquem procreaver- it, quem natum vivum fuisse constiterit, give vivat, sive de- cesserit, totum feodum quod maritus possidebat, ex parte uxoris suae tempore quo deces- serit, ipsi marito, quamdiu ab aliis cessabit nuptiis remanebit. Grand Coustomier, c. 121. See : Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 153. «Mir., o. 1,§3. ■'Glanv.,lib. 7, c. 18. 8 See : Bract. 437b ; Jura et Consuetudines, Norman, fol. 31 ; Lindebrog, L. L. Alleman, tit. 93; 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 153. 584 IN GAVELKIND LANDS. [Book III. Sec. 710. curtesy in England. -Whatever may have been the origin of the estate by curtesy, it has been a well-known estate in England, with well-defined incidents and qualities, from the reign of King Henry I., if indeed it does not antedate that period.^ Of late, however, this estate has been of infrequent occurrence in England, owing to the prevalence of marriage settlements.^ Sec. Til. Same— Curtesy in gavelkind lands.— By special custom of Kent, in gavelkind lands, a husband who survives his wife is entitled to dower in her lands whether he has issue or not ; but by this custom, curtesy extends only to a moiety ^ of the wife's lands, and in conformity to the custom of Normandy, the estate is forfeited by and ceases on the second marriage of the husband.* Sec. 713. Curtesy in fhe United States.— The right of the husband to an estate by curtesy was brought over by our forefathers as a part of our inheritance from the English law, and was adopted into and became a part of the fun- damental laws of all those states of the Union whose laws are founded upon and are the outgrowth of the common law, although a different rule prevails in those states whose laws are founded upon the civil law, in whole or in part, and community of property obtains. In those states which maybe designated as "the com- mon-law states," and in which the law relating to and governing estates by curtesy was adopted, the estate has been materially modified by statute in many, but abol- ished in but few. The right of the husband as tenant by the curtesy is expressly given by statute, substantially in the language of Littleton, in many of the states ; in others it has been incidentally recognized as an existing legal estate, either in statutes or judicial decisions. The common-law estate of tenancy by the curtesy may be ' See : Ante, §§ 708, 709. 2 Rob. Gav., c. 1. ' Williams' Real Prop. 187. " Free bench-lands."— In his treat- 3 Special custom may assign a differ- ise on Gavelkind, Mr. Robinson ent proportion, or the whole to says that this was formerly the husband. called the man's free bench, « Bac. Abr . , tit. " Gavelkind " (A) ; and cites a record of 31 Edward 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a, note 1 ; I., in which this custom is rec- 1 Inst. 30a, note 1 ; ognized. Chap. XVII. § 712.] IN THE UNITED STATES. 585 said to prevail generally in this country, though greatly modified by statute in many of the states, and in some of them a statutory estate has been substituted for it. Estate by the curtesy still exists in its common-law form, either by express statute or other recognition, in the following states : Delaware, ^ Kentucky,^ Maine,^ Mary- land,* Massachusetts,^ Nebraska,'' New Hampshire,^ New Jersey,^ New York,^ North Carolina,!" Ohio," Oregon, i^ ' Del. Rev. St. 1874, pp. 515, 533. ' Ky. Gen. Stats. 1873, c. 53, art. 4, §14. Compare : Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 747. ^ Limitei to a lifs estate in one-third of the wife's realty, in case she die solvent. Me. Rev. St. 1883, c. 103, § 15. Wife intestite. — Where the wife dies intestate and childless, and the estate is solvent, the hus- band receives one-half for his life. Me. Rev. St. 1883, c. 103, §15. " Md. Rev. Code, 1878, art. 45, § 2. ' Same as at common law, but restricted where the wife dies intestate and without issue. Mass. Pub. Stat. 1881, c. 134, § 1. By sec- tion 3 of this act, under such circumstances the husband takes the wife's realty in fee to the amount of $5,000, and cur- tesy in the residue, if any ; botli estates being subject to the wife's debts. Where there is no issue of the mar- riage, the husband takes one- hafl the land for life, whether the wife provides otherwise by her will or not. Mass. Stat. 1883, o. 235, § 3. 6 Neb. St. 1873, c. 17, §§ 39, 40. ' N. H. Gen. L. 1878, c. 303, § 14. « N. J. Rev. Stats. 1877, pp. 298, 330. ' The estate is liable to iDe defeated by the wife's separate conveyance in her lifetime. 4 N. Y. Stat. at L. 513. See : Thurber v. Townshend, 33 N. Y. 517; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182, 186. Descent does not affect. 4 N. Y. Rev. St. (8th ed.) 2466, § 20 ; 1 Rev. Stats. Codes & L. 860, § 20. See : Clark v. Clark, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 581 ; Leach v. Leach, 21 Hun (N. Y.) 381; Mack V. Roch, 13 Daly (N. Y ) 103 ; s.c. 24 Week. Dig. 35 ; Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 366. Compare : Billings v. Baker, 15 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 525. It is said by the court in the case of Mack V. Roch, 13 Daly (N. Y.) 103, 104, that the acts for the more effectual protection of married women, passed in New York, do not affect the common-law rights of the hus- band as tenant by the curtesy. Wliile these acts have excluded him from any control of his wife's separate estate during her life, they have left to him the right of curtesy in so much of her real property as remains at her death undisposed of and unbequeathed. Citing : Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280 ; Burke v. Valentine, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 413 ; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 6 Alb. L. J. 167 ; Barnes v.lJnderwood,47N.Y.351 ; Leach v. Leach, 21 Hun (N. Y.) 381; Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 21; Beamish v. Hoyt, 2 Robt. (N. Y.) 307. '» N. C. Code 1883, § 1838. " Given though there was no issue born alive. Ohio Rev. Stats. 1880, § 4176. lands of former husband. — But in this state there is no curtesy in lands received by the wife from a former husband, except by devise, where there is issue to take it. '^ Given though no issue born alive. Oreg. Gen. L. 1872, p. 588. >86 IN THE UNITED STATES. [Book III. Pennsylvania/ Rhode Island,^ Tennessee/ Vermont,* West Virginia/ and Wisconsin.^ The estate is recog- nized by the courts as an existing estate in the following states, to wit : Connecticut, Missouri,'^ and Virginia. The estate never existed, or has been expressly abolished by the statutes, in the following states, namely : Alabama,^ Arizona,^ Arkansas, i" California," Dakota, ^^ Florida, ^^ Georgia, i^Illinois,^^ Indiana, ^^ Iowa,i^Kansas,^^Louisiana,^^ ' Brightly's Prud. Dig., p. 1007. See : Pryor v. Wood, 31 Pa. St. 142, 147. ' R. I. Pub. Stat. 1882, c. 166, §§ 20, 35; Id.,c. 182, §2. Issue by former husband. — It is otherwise in this state, liow- ever, where the wife has issue by a former husband who would take the estate. ' Tenn. Stat. 1871, § 2486f. See : McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 165. «Vt. Eev. L. 1880, §2229. ' W. Va. Rev. Stat., c. 70, § 15. * In lands of which the wife died seized, and whioli were not dis- posed of by wiU. Wis. Rev. Stat. 1878, §§ 2180, 2277. ' Alexander ■;;. Warranoe, 17 Mo. 228. See : Reaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 36. ' Abolished by unrestricted power of a married woman to convey inter vivos and dispose by will of all her realty. Ala. Code 1876, § 2718. See : Tong v. Marvin, 14 Mich. 60, 73. Where the wif3 dies Intsstate the husband is entitled to the use of her realty for life. Ala. Code 1876, § 2714. ' Eeoeives in fae one-half of the property held in community by his wife and himself. Ariz. Comp. L. 1877, §S 1976, 1977. "> The unrestricted power of a married woman to convey inter vivos and dispose by will of all her realty in effect abolishes curt- esy. Ark. Dig. 1874. See : Tong v. Marvin, 14 Mich. 60, 73. " There is community of property in which a common stock is made of all acquisitions by either husband or wife during mar- riage. Stat. 1850, c. 147, § 10. Wood, Gala. Dig. 488, § 10. 12 Dak. Rev. Code 1887, p. 247. " Fla. Dig. 1881, p. 471, § 12; Id. 757, §16. The husband takes the child s share, and the whole if there are no children. " The wif3 has the power of disposi- tion by will of all her separate earnings. Ga. Code 1873, § 240. The husband takes a child's share of the wife's real estate, and the whole where there are no chil- dren. Id., §1761. 15 The husband is endowed of a life estate similar to dower at common law. 111. Rev. Stat. 1883, o. 41, §1. See : Henson v. Moore, 104 111. 403. Compare : Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 236. IS The husband takes as heir fee in one- third of the wife's realty. Ind. Rev. Stat. 1881, § 2483. Where the property exceeds $10,000, the husband has but one-fourth, and if more than |30.000, but one-fifth. Ind. Rev. Stat. 1881, § 2483. 11 The husbELnd takes a fee in one-third of the wife's realty in lieu of curtesy. Iowa Rev. Code 1880, §3440. '* The husband takes in lieu of curtesy a fee in one-half of the wife's estate, subject to her debts and sale on execution. Kan. Comp. L. 1879, §§ 2109, 2118. If there are no children, the hus- band takes the whole estate. Id., § 2121. " Community of property prevails, as in California and Texas. Ohap. XVII. § 713.] MARRIED WOMEN'S ACTS. .587 Michigan/ Minnesota,^ Mississippi,^ Montana/ Nevada/ South Carohna/ Texas," and Wyoming.^ Sec. Y13. Same— Under married wom.eii's acts.— The cases in some of the states, particularly Michigan ° and Mis- sissippi,^" hold that statutes securing to married women their property free from the control of their husbands, with power to dispose of it by will or by deed, by implica- tion abolish the estate by curtesy ; but the better opinion is thought to be that the Legislature must express an intention to abolish the common-law estate before this is accomplished.^^ The prevailing opinion, as well as the weight of authority, is that separate property acts suspend, during coverture, all the rights of the husband, or of his creditors, in statutory property, ^^ but do not destroy ■ The tmrestricted power of a married woman to convey inter vivos and dispose by will of all her realty is held to abolish estate by curtesy. Comp. L. 1871 , § 4300. See : Tong v. Marvin, 14 Mich. 60, 73. « Minn. L. 1875, c. 40, § 5. " Miss. Rev. Code 1880, § 1170. Compare : Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161, 169. ■* Curtesy is abolished by the unre- stricted power of a married woman to convey inter vivos and dispose by will of all her real property. Mont. Rev. Stat. 1879, p. 272. ' The hnshand received the whole of the commnnity property held by him- self and his wife. Nev. Comp. L. 1873, §§ 157, 160. 5 The hushand tikes in fee-simple the same share in the wife's • estate which she would, on surviving, take in his, namely, one-third ; and in certain cases one moiety, and in other cases two-thirds. 1 Brev. Dig. 432-424. In case of Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597, it is said that the statute of 1791 only abolished curtesy in fees-simple, and that it still exists in that state in fees conditional. The court held that the statute impliedly abolishes curtesy ; but it is thought that the statute merely puts the husband to his elec- tion ; he cannot take both the curtesy and the statutory pro- vision. ■■ There is commnnity of property, as in California and Louisiana, with special provisions in case of intestacy. Tex. Rev. Stat. 1879, § 1653. If there are children, the survivor takes one-half, and in some cases the whole estate. Portis V. Parker, 22 Tex. 699. 8 Wy. Comp. L. 1873, § 157. « Ransom v. Ransom, 30 Mich. 328 ; Tong V. Marvin, 14 Mich. 60, 70, 73. " Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 790, Tlie question is considered at length in Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 343, and the dis- cussion pronounced able and exhaustive, but the conclusion doubted in the Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.)31 ; and the case is criticised and distinguished by tlie Court of Chancery of New Jersey, in Poi-ch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 204. " Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 21, 34 ; Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N. C.) L. 161 ; Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455, 469. '2 Martin v. Robson, 65 111. 130,133 ; s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 578 ; Beach v. Miller, 51 El. 206, 209 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 390 ; Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58, 66 ; 588 KINDS OF CURTESY. [Book III. curtesy, or prevent its vesting on the death of the wife, without disposing of her statutory estate,^ unless tenancy by the curtesj' is destroyed by expressed words of the statute, or necessary implication, or by a lawful disposi- tion of the property by the wife.^ Where the purpose and the effect of a married woman's act is to secure the wire the control of her separate property during coverture, it has the effect to suspend the husband's common-law rights in the property during that period, and curtesy in the lands of the wife does not vest in the husband until after the wife's death, ^ but upon her death estate by curtesy becomes consummate, and vests in the husband in all respects as at common law.* Sec. Y14. Kinds of curtesy.— Tenancy by the curtesy may be said to be of two kinds or classes, to wit : (1) legal Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 844, 350; Sohindel v. Schindel, 13 Md. 108, 313; Logan V. McGill, 8 Md. 461, 470 ; Anderson v. Tydine-s. 8 Md. 427, 443; Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. 809, 311; Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (8 C. E. Gr.) 204, 208 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380 ; Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 21, 36, 34 ; Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.)366, 368; Jones V. Carter, 73 N. C. 148, 149 Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N C.) 161, 162 ; Coleman v. Satterfield, 3 Head (Tenn.) 359, 264 ; Bottoms V. Corley, 5 Heisk (Tenn.) 1, 6, 9. ' Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58, 66 ; Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ; Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427, 443 ; Pratt V. Smith, 31 N. J. L. (2 Vr.) 244, 246 ; Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 204, 309 ; Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.c. 84 Am. Deo. 143 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280, 287; Burke v. Valentine, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 413 ; s.c. 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 164 ; Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 366, 368, 370 ; Leach v. Leach, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 881, 383 ; Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 692, 695 ; Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 21, 36, 34 ; Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N. C.) 161, 162 ; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ; Breeding v. Davis, 77 Va. 639 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 740 ; Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455, 464, 467 ; Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360, 366. See : Martin v. Robson, 65 111. 132 ; s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 578 ; Hill V. Chambers, 30 Mich. 427. ^ Bozarth v. Largent, 128 111. 95 ; s.c. 31 N. E. Rep. 218 ; Noble V. McFarland, 51 111. 236 ; Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ; Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380. » Bozarth v. Largent, 138 111. 95 ; s.c. 31 N. E. Rep. 218 ; Lucas V. Lucas, 103 111. 121 ; Beech v. Miller, 51 111. 206. ■•Bozarth v. Largent, 138 111. 95: s.c. 31 N. B. Rep. 318 : Gay V. Gay, 133 111. 331 ; s.c. 13 N. E. Rep. 813 ; Castner v. Walrod, 83 111. 171 ; Noble V. McFarland, 51 111. 336 ; Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 319. Chap. XVII. § 715.] KINDS OF CURTESY— INITIATE. 589 curtesy, or the interest of a husband in the lands of his deceased wife, usually designated by that name ; and (2) equitable curtesy, a right allowed to the husband by a Court of Chancery, which is analogous to legal curtesy. Legal curtesy consists of two stages, known as {a) curtesy initiate and (6) curtesy consummate. Sec. 715. Same— l. Curtesy initiate.— The first stage of legal curtesy, known as curtesy initiate, begins either upon the birth of issue, born alive, ^ in the lifetime of the mother,^ and capable of inheriting the estate,^ or of seisin in the wife, whichever first takes place,* and this estate being once vested by the birth of issue is not suffered to deter- mine by the subsequent death or the coming of age of the child.^ This stage has sometimes been referred to the time of the marriage, but this is erroneous, because there is no curtesy in any degree until after the birth of issue or the possession of property by the wife.^ The error is thought to arise from confusing the estate by curtesy with the common-law right a husband acquires in his wife's lands, by virtue of the marriage. Marriage is the foundation of the whole, but it does not constitute it at the common law.'^ The husband indeed becomes seized of a freehold by the marriage, but it is his wife's free- hold, not his, insomuch that both must do homage for it ; in contemplation of law her person is his person, and her ' See : Post, § 749. Greenl.) 400 ; '' See ■ Post, 8i 752. Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. 3 1 Co. Litt. flOth ed.) 30a, 40 ; (6 Alien) 166 ; 2 Bl. Com. 126 ; Jackson ex d. v. Johnson, 5 Cow. Post, § 753. (N- Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. See :' Chambers v. Handley, 3 J. 433 ; J Marsh. (Ky.) 98 ; Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph. Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776 ; (Tenn.) 298, 307 ; Wilson V. Arentz. 70 N. C. 670 ; 2 Bl. Com. 126. Foster v Marshall, 22 N. H. (2 Lancaster County Bank v. Stauf- Fost.) 491 ; fer, 10 Pa. St. 398. Marabie v. Jordan, 5 Humpli. ' In Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 111. (Tenn.) 417. 367, a marriage had taken In Delaware the right of a tenant place before, and issue had been by the curtesy initiate is prac- born after, the passage of an tically abolished by statute. act abolishing curtesy, and the Moore v. Darby, 18 Atl. Rep. 768. court held t)iat the husband " Gibbins v. Eyden, L. R. 7 Eq. 371, had, prior to the passage of the 376. act, acquired no such estate as » Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 75, would be protected from de- i 83 ; struotion on the ground of its With'am v. Perkin, 2 Me. (2 being a vested right. 590 CURTESY INITIATE. [Book III. seisin his seisin. But after the birth of issue the liusband has a separate estate.-^ The husband's estate by curtesy becomes initiate upon the birth of a child, or the acquisi- tion of property after the date of the marriage, and becomes consummate on the death of the wife.^ The tenant by curtesy initiate has an estate for hfe in his deceased wife's estate of inheritance, in his own right.^ The estate the husband thus acquires is an estate of free- hold in the husband in the lands of the wife held by her in her own right ; yet he is not seized solely, during cov- erture, and after issue born he is tenant by the curtesy, and is jointly seized with his wife ;* the estate of the hus- band in the land, being a vested estate, is bound by a judgment recovered against him before the death of the wife, to the extent of the value of the estate.® In some states it is held that by reason of husband's curtesy initiate a married woman during coverture has no right of action to recover possession of her fee-simple lands from a stranger, that right being in her husband ; and after her death her heirs have no right of action, by reason of the husband's curtesy consummate, prior to his death ; and hence the statute of limitations does not commence to run against the heirs of a nlarried woman until after the death of her husband.^ ' Lancaster County Bank v. Stauf- hause, 63 Mo. 81. fer, 10 Pa. St. 398. See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. ' See : Post, § 716. 388 ; ' Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (3 Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (3 Fost.)491. Fost.)491; * See : Junction Railroad v. Harris, Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- 9 Ind. 184 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Butterfield v. Beall, 3 Ind. 303 ; Am. Dec. 433. Wass V. Buckman, 38 Me. 356 ; Disseisin of husband.— In New Melyin v. Prop'rs, 33 Mass. (16 Hampshire the seizure and pos- Pick.) 161 ; session of the tenant by the Jackson ex d. u. Johnson, 5 Cow. curtesy initiate is so completelr (N Y.) 74; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. his own that if he is disseized „}°°.' during coverture neither his Weismger v. Murphy, 3 Head wife nor her heirs are affected (Tenn.) 674 ; by the possession under such ,^^ '"; „-^:^^^^^°^' ^ Humph. disseisin, so long as the husband (ienn.) 398, 330 ; is alive ; and they having McCorry v Kmg's Heirs, 3 twenty years after their death I ->^ fi"™Pf;X. "'^•^ ^^'^- i"! which to regain their estate. Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (3 . ^ 515. Post.) 491. Dyer v. Wittier, 89 Mo. 81 ; s.c. In other states it has been held 58 Am. Rep. 85 ; 4 West. Rep. that such disseisin and posses- _t)73, overruling Valle v. Oben- sion will run against both hus- Chap. XVII. § 716.] CURTESY CONSUMMATE. 591 Sec. 716. Same— 2. Curtesy consummate.— Upon the death of the wife the curtesy initiate hecomes consummate by- operation of law,^ and without any act or proceeding on the part of the husband ^ it devolves upon him, as the estate of the ancestor does upon the heir ; and no dis- claimer on the part of the husband, short of an actual release, will prevent the estate from vesting in him instantly upon the death of his wife.^ It is not until the death of the wife that the husband becomes tenant by the curtesy in the proper sense of the term. During the life of the wife he is only ' ' tenant by the curtesy initiate," and as such is respected in law for some pur- poses; but he is not tenant by curtesy consummate, so as band and wife, in absence of a saving clause in the statute in favor of the femes covert, which gives a certain time in which to bring an action after disa- bility is removed; and the same rule applies to her heirs in those cases where the husband sur- vives the wife. See : Coe v. Wolcottville Mfg. Co., 35 Conn. 175; Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 75, 88; Melius V. Snowman, 21 Me. 201 ; Bruce v. Wood, 43 Mass. (1 Met.) 542; Melvin v. Prop'rs of Locks and Canals, 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 161 ; Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 Head (Tenn.) 764 ; Guion V. Anderson, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 298 ; McCorry v. Bang's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 267. Conveyance l)y hnsband. — By the statute of 32 Henry VIII., o. 8, which is a part of the common law of many of the states of the Union, where the husband alone conveys his wife's land, it does not work a discontinu- ance of her estate, and at his decease the wife, or her heirs, may enter upon and take pos- session of the land the same as if no such conveyance had been made. See : Miller v. Shackleford, 4 Dana (Ky.) 264, 277 ; Bruce v. Wood, 43 Mass. (1 Met.) 542, 544 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 133. The wife must join in the deed : that is, it must appear that both husband and wife were parties to the efficient and operative parts of the instrument of con- veyance ; it is not sufficient that her name waa annexed, as expressing her assent to the act of her husband, and with- out words showing her formal participation in the granting part of the deed. Bruce v. Wood, 42 Mass. (1 Met.) 542, 543. See : AUendorff ■;;. Gaugengigl, 146 Mass. 543 ; Chapman v. Miller, 128 Mass. 269: Price v.Chace, 108 Mass. 254,358; Wales V. Coffin, 95 Mass. (13 Allen) 213, 216 ; Jewett V. Davis, 93 Mass. (10 Allen) 68, 71 : Wight V. Shaw, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 56, 66 ; Raymond v. Holden, 56 Mass. (2 Cush.) 264, 271 ; Lufkin V. Curtis, 13 Mass. 223 ; Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. 161 ; Powell V. Monson & Brimfleld Manfg. Co., 3 Mas. C. C. 347. > See : Post, % 759. ^ Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 75, 83; Witham v. Perkins, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.) 400 ; Young V. Davis, 7 H. & N. 766 ; 3 Bl. Com. 128 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a. 3 Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 77, 83; Witham v. Perkins, 2 Me. 400. 592 EQUITABLE CUETESY. [Book III. to give him a separate and independent estate of free- hold until after the deabh of his wife.^ Sec. Yl7. Same— 3. Equitable curtesy.— In England the Court of Chancery allowed to the husband a right, analo- gous to curtesy, which may be styled equitable curtesy, in respect to equitable estates having the same nature and quantum as legal estates which confer the right.^ The phrase "equitable estate" was understood in the Eng- lish cases to include an equity of redemption,^ and trust money held upon trust for investment in land. In the case of Sweetapple v. Bindon,* the court expressed a doubt whether curtesy should be allowed where the trust arose under marriage articles, but this doubt is disposed of in Cunningham v. Moody. ^ Sec. Y18. Common-law requisites of curtesy.— At common law to entitle the husband to be tenant by the curtesy of the wife's lands of inheritance after her death the fol- lowing circumstances are necessary, to wit : (1) Lawful marriage ; ^ (2) seisin by the wife during coverture of an estate of inheritance to which issue of the marriage may possibly succeed as heir to the wife ; '^ (3) birth of issue alive in the lifetime of the wife ; ^ (4) the death of the wif e,^ ' Jones V. Davies, 7 H. & N. 766 ; ^ Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 603. '2 Bl. Com. 128. " 2 Vern. 536. See : Oldham v. Henderson, 5 * 1 Ves. Sr. 174. Dana (Ky.) 254 ; ■! See : Post, % 719. Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige ' MoDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465, Ch. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.o. 21 Am. 483 ; Dec. 66; Litt., §§ 35, 52. Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (IST. Y.) See : Post, § 747. 21, reversing s.c. 1 Lans. (N. Y.) « Comer v. Cliamberlain, 88 Mass. 508. (6 Allen) 166, 169. In lands disposed of ty will. — An See : Post, ^ 749. estate by tbe curtesy consum- ' Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965, mate exists in the husband in 967 ; the wife's lands unaUened by MoDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465, her during her lifetime, though 483 ; devised by her will. Such Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Coim. estate is subject to the liens of ■ 225, 230 ; the husband's creditors ac- Stewart i;. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 788; quired during the coverture, in Forbes v. Sweezy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.o. preference to the general liens 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ; of her creditors upon her real Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. estate. 543, affirming s.c. 56 Barb. (N. Browne v. Bockover, 84 Va. 424 ; Y.) 168 ; s.c. 4 8. E. Rep. 745. Jackson ex d. Swartwouti;. John- ' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 95 ; s.c. Hargrave's note 6. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Chap. XVII. § 719.] EEQUISITES— LAWFUL MARRIAGE. 593 and (5) the right of the husband to hold real estate ; ^ but these requisites need not all exist contemporane- ously.^ Thus it is not necessary that there should be seisin and issue at the same time ; ^ and, therefore, if the wife become seized of lands during the coverture, and then be disseized, and then have issue, the husband shall be tenant by the curtesy of those lands ; * also if the wife become seized after issue born, though the issue die before seisin. ° And the same is true of a birth before marriage, if the issue is legitimized by the marriage.® Sec. 719. Same— 1. Lawful marriage.— The first requisite to an estate by curtesy is a legal and valid marriage,^ because a man has curtesy in a woman's lands only as her husband. ^ Blackstone says ^ that the marriage should be a "legal and canonical " one ; but this is manifestly erroneous, because a marriage within the Levitical degrees is voidable only, and if not voided by a divorce obtained in the lifetime of the wife, the husband will take his estate by the curtesy.^" A marriage is legal and valid when all those conditions exist and are performed which are essential before a man and woman may lawfully cohabit and bear children. These essentials are, generally speak- ing, as follows r (1) Parties competent to contract who have the capacity to marry each other; " (2) a mutual agreement Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. (6 Allen) 166, 169 ; 595 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwoutt;. John- Carpenter V. Garrett, 75 Va. 129, son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.o. 15 133 ; Am. Dec. 433. Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. ' Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- 455, 457 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.o. 15 Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 19, 33. Am. Dec. 433. See : Post, § 759. See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. ' See : Post, section V., this chap- 228, 236 ; ter. Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. « Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965, 595. 969 ; " Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965, Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. 969. (6 Allen) 166, 169 ; ' Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. Jackson ex d. Swartwout 1;. John- 543, afE'g s.c. 56 Barb. (N. Y.) son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 95 ; s.c. 168 ; 15 Am Dec. 433 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a. Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 19, 23 : » See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a. 235. 3 Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. ' 2 Bl. Com. 127. (6 Allen) 166, 169 ; '» Brest. Est. 473, 478. Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. " The marriage must be between * Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. people capable of contracting 38 594 LEX LOCI GOVERNS VALIDITY. [Book III. between the parties to be henceforth husband and wife ; ^ (3) a ceremony accompanied by certain formalities is usually necessary,^ and (4) an assumption of the marriage relations, having sexual intercourse and taking on the rights, duties, and obligations of husband and wife.^ . Sec. Y20. same— Same— Lex loci governs.— The legality and validity of a marriage is governed by the lex loci contractus. If the marriage is valid v\rhere the contract is made, it is valid everywhere else ; if it is invalid where made, it is invalid everywhere else. In the various states of the Union, marriage is usually regarded as a civil con- tract,^ and differs from other contracts only in that it cannot be rescinded at the will of the parties. Conse- quently any agreement based upon mutual consent of the parties properly made, by which a man and woman agree to cohabit, as husband ana wife, necessarily establishes a legal marriage. A solemnization by a clergyman ^ is un- necessary in all except a few of the states, a mere con- sent per verba de presenti being sufficient to constitute a valid contract of marriage.® a marriage, and curtesy cannot s.c. 1 Eng. Ec. 408, 409 ; 28 arise where one of tlie parties Eng. L. & Eq. 96, 101 ; is an idiot or insane, for in that Deane v. Aveling, 1 Rob. Ecc. 279, case the marriage is void, ab 398. initio. * Marriage a civil contract. — It is said See : Morison v. Stewart, Deleg. by Lord Stowell in the case of 1745 ; Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Turner v. Meyers, 1 Hagg. Cons. Hagg. Cons.54, that "marriage, 416. in its origin, is a contract of • See : Maguire v. Maguire, 7 Dana natural law ; it may exist be- (Ky.) 181, 183, 184; tween two individuals of dif- Rundle v. Pegram, 49 Miss. 751, ferent sexes, although no third "^54 ; person existed in tlie world, as True V. Ranney, 21 N. H. (1 Faust) happened in the case of the 52, 54 ; common ancestors of mankind. Ferlat v. Gojon, 1 Hopk. Ch. It is the parent, not the child, ? : Hubee v. Habee, 20 La. An. 97 : Philbrick V. Spangler, l.j La. An 46; Cole '■. langlej-, 14 La. An. 7*4 : Holmes v. Holmes, 6 La. 463, 47i.i: Prevost r. Prevost, 4 La. An. 347. 349 : Patton V. Philadelphia, 1 La. An. 9S, 101. ' Hutchins i: Kimmell. 31 Mich. 126, 1-30. See : Meister v. Moore. 96 U. S. 76, 7s : bk. 25 L. ed. s2ij ' State V. Wortiiington, 23 Minn. 528. 533. " noyd f. Calvert, 53 iliss. 37. 44 : Bundle r. Pegram, 49 iliss. 751 : Dickeison r. Brown, 49 Miss. a57: HajTOTer v. Thompson, 31 iliss. 211. 21.5. " Dyer i: Brannock, 66 Mo. 391. 402; Boyer v. Dively, 5^ Mo. 510. '- State V. WinkleT, 14 X. H. 480 ; dark v. dark, iO X. H. 380, 383; Londonderry i-. Chester, 2 N. H. 26*. 270. Compare: Dnnbarton v. Frank- lin, 19 X. H. 257. "Vreeland v. Treeland, 18 X. J. Eq. (3C. E. Gr.)43, 45; Goldbeck r. Goldteck, 18 >'. J. Eq. (3C. K Gr.)42. 43; Wilson V. Hill, 13 Js. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 143. 145 : Pearson r. Howev, 11 X. J. L. (6 Halst.) 12, IS. " Hvnes v. McDermott, 82 X. Y. 41,46; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 71 X. T. 423, 427 : Hayes v. People, 25 X. T. 390 ; CanjoUe v. Ferrie. 23 X. Y. 90 ; Davis V. Davis, 1 Abb. (X. Y.) X. C. 140: Van Tuyl v. Tan Tuyl, 57 Barb. (X. Y.) 2.85 ; Bissell 1-. Bissell, .55 Barb. (X. Y.) 325: Fenton v. Reed, 4 John. (X. Y.) 52 : Re Tavlor. 9 Paige Ch. (X. Y.) 611: Rose v. Clark, 8 Paige Ch. (X. Y.) 574. " Carmichael r. State, 12 Ohio St. 553. .557-559 ; Duncan v. Duncan, 10 Ohio St ISl. 18:3. « Richard i: Brehm, 73 Pa. St. 140, 144: Commonwealth v. Stump, 53 Pa. St. 132 : Hantz V. Sealy, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 405: Phvsick r. Physick, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 179 ; Guardians v. Nathans, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 149, 152 ; Brices Estate. 11 PhOa. (Pa.) 98. ' ■ State r. ^Vhaley, 10 S. C. 500 ; Xorth 1-. Talk, Dud. (S. C.) Eq. Frver i". Frver, 1 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. Cas. 85. 92. " Williams v. Williams, 46 Wia. 464, 475. Chap. XVII. § 723.] VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGE. 597 by the Supreme Court of the United States.^ It is open to some doubt whether a celebration is requisite to a vahd marriage in some of the states not above enumer- ated ; but it is thought that it is probably necessary in Delaware,^ Maine,^ Virginia,* and West Virginia ; and is not required in the states of Arkansas,^ Florida,*' Indiana/ Kansas,^ Nebraska, Nevada,^ Ehode Island,^" and Vermont. ^^ Although the question has not been decided in the states of Connecticut, Colo- rado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, it is thought there is reason to believe that, should the question be directly raised in either of these states, a celebration of the mar- riage will be held not to be essential.^ Sec. 723. Same — Same — ^Void and voidable m.arriage. — Where the marriage is a void one because of some ille- gality, the man acquires no right to curtesy ; but if it be voidable merely, and is not annulled during the lifetime of the wife, the husband will be tenant by the curtesy ; for a marriage cannot be avoided by the courts after the death of either of the parties. ^^ Sec. 723. Same— 2. Seisin of wife.— To entitle the husband to hold as tenant by the curtesy, the wife must be seized," ' Meister c. Moore, 96 U. S. 76, 78 ; (Ind.) 234, 235. bk. 24 L. ed. 826. • See : State v. White, 19 Kan. « See : Pettyjohn v. Pettyjohn, 1 445, 449. Houst. (Del.) 232, 234. ' Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 6 Nev. => State V. Hodgskins, 19 Me. 155, 63, 66. 157 ; " Peck V. Peck. 13 R. I. 485, 488. Damon v. Damon, 6 Me. (6 " Newberry v. Brmiswick, 2 Vt. Greenl.) 148 ; 151, 160. Cram v. Burnham, 5 Me. (5 See : Northfield v. Vershire, 33 Greenl.) 213 ; Vt. 110 ; Brunswick v. Litchfield, 3 Me. (3 State v. Rood, 13 Vt. 396, 399. Greenl ) 28. Compare : Northfield v. Ply- ■» Francis v. Francis, 31 Gratt. (Va.) mouth, 20 Vt. 583, 591. 283 386-7 ; " See : Andrews •;;. Page, 3 Heisk. O'Neal V. Commonwealth, 17 (Tenn.) 653, 667; Gratt. (Va.) 582, 587. Catterall v. Sweetman, 1 Rob. ' ScoKKins V. State, 33 Ark. 205, Eoc. 304, 313, 317. 212 " 2 Burns Ecc. Law, 458, 501. « Burns' •?;. Burns, 13 Fla. 369, 380 ; ■" Bogy v. Roberts, 48 ArK 17 ;s.c. Pondes v. Graham, 4 Fla. 33. 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. W.186 ; ' Nassamon v. Nassamon, 4 Ind. Mackey v. Proctor, 13 B. Mon. 648 650 • (Ky-) 433 ; Trimble ■y.'Trimble, 3 Ind. 76. 78 ; Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) Fleming v. Fleming, 8 Blackf. 48 ; 598 SEISIN OF WIFE. [Book HL during coverture, of an estate of inheritance,^ which may- be either legal ^ or equitable ; ^ and the estate must also be an estate in possession, for it is a general rule that there can be no curtesy in an estate in reversion ex- pectant on a life interest, or other estate of freehold.* Stevens v. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 64 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 205 ; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ; s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ; Den ex d. Hopper v. Demarest, 21 N. J. L. 525 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 400; Jackson ex d. Swartwont v. Jolin- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 186 ; Lessee of Merritt v. Horns, 5 Ohio St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 298. Thus where an estate was devised to the wife during vpidowhood, or until his son B arrived at the age of twenty-one, and one- third on her marriage, and a daughter married and had issue and died before B arrived at the age of twenty-one and in the lifetime of lier mother, the court held that the hus- band of the daughter so dying was not entitled to curtesy in the one-third left to the widow of the testator, because the wife never had seisin thereof. Carter v. Williams, 8'lred. (N. C.) Eq. 177 ; Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129. Sale and reinvestment of funds. — In the case of Bogy v. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17, a fatlier who was ten- ant by the curtesy sold his in- terest in his deceased wife's lands in connection with a sale as guardian of the children's interest therein, under an order of the Probate Court, and re- invested the whole proceeds in other lands, taking a deed to himself as guardian of the chil- dren, under wJiich deed he took possession, received the rents and profits for years, and made valuable improvements. On marriage of his daughter and ejectment brougiit, the court held that the husband was not entitled to curtesy in the tract of land thus purchased, because his deceased wife was never seized of it. A contrary doctrine, however, is held by some courts, whicli maintain that a husband may be entitled to tenancy by curt- esy though the wife never was seized in deed, either actually or constructively, of the land, and although the same may be held adversely during covert- ure. See -. Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377. Thus it was held in Borland v. Marshall, 2 Ohio St. 308, that the owner of the inheritance in land is "possessed" of it for the pui'poses of dower and curt- esy. Weir V. Tate, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 264. ' Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 168 ; Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. 367. See : Haynes ■y.Bourne,42 Vt. 686. ^ See : Post, § 737. ^Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn, 595. Under the statute of uses, in giving effect to estates imder, courts of equity have always sought to follow, and in most respects have followed, the law in re- gard to the nature and inci- dents of such estates, and the husbands of cestui que trusts were allowed to take curtesy in the trust estates where they were estates of inheritance, and the wife had an equity which answered to a seisin in law of legal estates in possession. See : Davis v. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239 ; Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C. C. 121 ; Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 695, 717; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408; Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 Vern. 537, n. 3 ; Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 109. * See : Bogy v. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ; Chap. XVII. § 724.] SUFFICIENCY OF WIFE'S SEISIN. 599 Whether the husband is entitled to hold as tenant by the curtesy, or not, must be determined by the nature of the estate of which the husband and wife were seized in her right in her lifetime.^ Sec. Y24. Same— Same— What seisin is sufaeient.— To en- title a husband to curtesy in the lands of his deceased wife, there must have been seisin of the wife, or of the husband in her right : ^ (1) in law or in fact ; (2) the seisin must be beneficial ; ^ (3) it must be sole, and (4) must exist s.c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. W. Rep. 186 ; Carter v. WUliams, 8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 177 ; Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. 367; Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129 ; Watk. Deso. (4th ed.) 131. ' Haynes v. Bourn, 43 Vt. 686. ' Petty V. Malier, 1.5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 591 ; Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 467 ; Orr V. Holiidays, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 59. ^ Thus where a woman was seized in fee, in trust for the grantor for life, with a reversion in the beneficial interest to herself, it was held that the husband was not entitled to curtesy in Chew V. Commissioners of South- wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 159. In the course of the opinion the court say: "Now the quota- tion from Lord Coke relative to the seisin that is necessary to give a right of dower, and the nature of the estate out of which such right may or may not be claimed, is equally ap- plicable as well as necessary to establish a right by the curtesy. And LordHAEDWiCKE, accord- ingly, in the case of Hearle v. Greenback, 1 Ves. Sr. 307, laid it down in these words : ' Though said to be determined in Casborn «., Scarf e, 1 Atk. 603, that a husband may be tenant by the curtesy of a trust in equity, yet the wife must in the first place have the inherit- ance ; and secondly, there must be a seisin of the freehold dur- ing the coverture.' The same principle is repeated and con- firmed by Chancellor Kent in his Commentaries, vol. IV., p. 31 (of the first edition), who there states, ' The wife must have had a seisin of the freehold and inheritance seniel et simul, either at law or in equity, during the coverture. ' But the seisin at law here mentioned must be imderstood as a seisin attended by or under a right of owner- ship ; because in addition to what has been already ad- vanced going to show that this must be so, the husband, if en- titled to tlie estate at all by the curtesy, has the right to it im- mediately upon the death of his wife, or it would not be, as has been already shown, a con- tinuation of the estato or right of the wife ; but if the wife was seized only in trust for the use of another, and not for her own benefit, at the time of lier death, the husband cannot take, for Chief Baron Gilbert, in his treatise on Uses and Trusts, 171 , lays it down that ' tenant by the curtesy, or tenant in dower, cannot be seized to uses, be- cause they come to these estates by the disposition of law, for the advancement and encour- agement of matrimony ; and those estates are given them for their own maintenance, and are consequently exclusive of all other uses for the advantage of- other people. ' And besides, to permit the husband to take the estate for his own use on the death of the wife, where she was only seized of the free- hold as a trustee, would be in direct violation of the trust and of the rights of the cestui que 600 SEISIN IN FACT. [Book III. some time during coverture.^ In some of the states the wife must die seized. ^ In this country the common law on this point is not observed with the same degree of strictness as in England, and an immediate right of entry or constructive seisin, in the absence of any adverse pos- session, is considered sufficient to vest the title as tenant by curtesy in the husband.^ Sec. 725. Same— Same— Seisin in fact or in deed.— At com- trust, -which are paramount to that of either the wife or the husband, and, therefore, is not to be tolerated for a moment." See to same effect McKee v. Jones, 6 Pa. St. 429. ' Lord Coke says, if a man dies seized of lands in fee-simple or fee-tail general, and they de- scend to his daughter, who marries, has issue, and dies be- fore entry, the husband shall not be tenant by the curtesy ; yet in this case the husband had a seisin in law. But if she or her husband had entered during her life, he would have been tenant by the curtesy. Doe V. Rivers, 7 T. R. 276 ; Thomas v. Thomas, 6 T. R. 671, 679 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 306 ; 1 Inst. 29a. « See : Post, § 731. Incorporeal hereditaments. — With respect to the seisin which is necessary in the incorporeal hereditaments, to give a title to curtesy, a seisin in law or constructive seisin is sufficient, even at common law, as the husband could not by any in- dustry obtain a seisin in deed. If it be a rent created by means of a conveyance to uses, the grantee immediately acquires a seisin by the words of the statute. 1 Inst. 29a. Eemainder in tail — Surrender of par- ticular estate. — A married wo- man owning a vested remainder in tail receiving a surrender of a particular estate acquires a sufficient seisin to support an estate by the curtesy. Pierce r. Hakes, 28 Pa. St. 331. ^ Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Selliok, 8 John. (N. Y.) 262 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N.Y.) 1S3: McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 507, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239 ; Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.) 239, 349 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545 ; Barr v. GaUoway, 1 McL. C. C. 476. Compare: Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 388. The owner of the inheritince in land is possessed of it sufficient for the purpose of curtesy in dower. Wier V. Tate, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 264. A recovery alone, in ejectment, by the husband and wife, has been held sufficient for this pui-pose. Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 643. A right of entry by the wife is sufficient, in some of the states, by force of the statute of de- scents, notwithstanding any adverse seisin or possession. Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ; Bush r. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 398, 306 ; Hillhouse v. Chester, 3 Day (Conn.) 166 ; Mitchell V. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377. Peaceable possession under claim of title, though for less than 20 years, when there has been no abandonment, is sufficient prima facie evidence of an estate of inheritance in the wife to sustain a claim of curtesy by the husband. Smoot V. Lecatt,l Stew. (Ala.) 590. A fortiori, is this sufficient, with a descent cast, or devise ? Rochon V. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 609. Chap. XVII. § 726.] SEISIN IN FACT— EXCEPTIONS. 601 mon law a husband could not be tenant by the curtes3% unless the wife, or the husband in her right, liad actual seisin, or seisin in deed, that is, had possession of the land during coverture ; ^ and this doctrine has been held by some of the courts of this country.^ Any one who is in actual possession of land, claiming a freehold,^ or who has the immediate right to possession under a deed* or a judicial judgment,^ is said to be seized in fact or in deed. Sec. ^'2Ck Same— Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule.— The common-law rule, that actual seisin or seisin in deed must be acquired during the coverture, applied in its full 1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 2di\. * See : Rochon v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 603, filO; Bush r. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 30y, so.-) ; StinebauR-h v. Wisdom, 13 B. Mon. (ky.)467; Welch's Heirs v. Chandler, 13 B. Miin. (Ky.) 420 ; Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48; Orr V. Hollidays, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 59; Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 175 ; Stevens v. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 64; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 205; Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 186 ; s.c. 43 N. Y. 543 ; Gibbs V. Esty, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 266; Nixon V. Williams, 95 N. C. 103 ; Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129, 134; Mercer's Lessees v. Selden, 42 U. S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk. 11 L. ed. 38; Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 503, 507 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239, 240 ; Lessee of Barr v. Galloway, 1 McL. C. C. 476 ; Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C. 263. The reason for the rule is given by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in the case of Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48, to be because " it is the duty of the husband, to enable him to pro- tect the land from injury and for the purpose of fortifying the title of his wife, to take it into actual possession. The wife being disabled by coverts ure to do it herself, the law devolves the duty on the hus- band, and if he fails in his performances, he has no in- terest in tlie land upon the deatli of the wife. The uni- form course of the decisions in this court, therefore, lias been to regard actual seisin by the husband during coverture as necessary to entitle him to an estate in the land of his wife after her death, as tenant by curtesy." * See : Durando r. Durando, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 539 ; Vanderheyden v. Crandall, 2 Den. (N. Y.) 9, 21 ; Wendell v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491 ; Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 42 U. S. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L. ed. 38, 46 ; Hovenden r. Annesley, 2 Schoales & Lef . 623. The word "seisin" applies only to freehold estates. See : Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 439; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 139 ; Slater v. Rarason, i7 Mass. (6 Met.) 439, 444 ; Towle V. Ayer, 8 N. H. 58 ; Englishbe v. Helmuth, 3 N. Y. 294; 1 Co. Litt. (19fch ed.) 153a. ■* See : Higbee v. Rice, 5 Mass. 352 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182 ; Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 42 U. S. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L. ed. 38, 46. '■ Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 643. 602 EXCEPTIONS TO RULE OF SEISIN. [Book III, rigor only to lands. As regards other realty of which there is curtesy, a seisin in law suffices if circumstances make seisin in deed impossible ; as of a rent, if the wife dies before it becomes due.^ Entry is not necessary to acquire seisin in deed of land, if there be a tenant for years of the land ; because his possession is the possession of the husband and wife, even before the receipt of rent from him.'' The Supreme Court of New York have de- clared that the doctrine of actual seisin, or seisin in deed, is of limited scope.^ The court say that in all cases where actual seisin of the wife has been required, it will be found that the wife claimed either as heir or devisee, and hold that where the wife's title rests on a deed taking effect by the statute of uses, the corporal possession would be drawn to the legal title "by a kind of parliamentary magic. " We have already seen* that the rule requiring that the wife should have actual seisin is not applied in this country as strictly as in England, and we will see presently ^ that it is not applied to wild and uncultivated lands ; where she is owner of such lands, she is deemed in possession, so as to entitle her husband to become tenant by the curtesy, though there has been no actual possession by either of them during the coverture.® There is also an exception to the rule requiring seisin in fact or deed, where actual seisin during coverture was prevented by bodily fear.^ 1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a. actual descent at common law, ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, Har- there could never be an absolute grave's note 3. impossibility to obtain seisin in Seisin under English Descent Act — ■ deed, but only a certain degree In Eager v. Furnivall, 17 Ch. of difficulty which, however D. 115, it seems to have been great in practice, could not in assumed that the alteration of theory be said to be insuperable. the English rules of descent has ^ Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. not affected the necessity for Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; actual seisin ; but the point s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433. was not raised. It was also ^ See : Ante, § 724. assumed that a seisin in law of ' See : Post, % 743. lands would suffice, when a ^ Jackson ex'd. Beekman v. Sellick, seisin in deed could not by any 8 John. (N. Y.) 262. possibility be had. It is to be See : Davis v. Mason, 26 U. S. observed that in this case the (1 Pet.) 503, 506 ; bk. 7 L. ed. impossibility arose out of a 239, 240 ; peculiar state of circumstances Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.) caused by sect. 33 of the Wills 229, 249 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 552. Act, and was an absolute im- ' Lessee of Barr t;. Galloway, 1 McL. possibility ; whereas, upon an C. C. 476. Chap. XVII. § 727.] SEISIN IN LAW. 603 Sec. 727. same— Same— Seisin in lav-— The common-law rule requiring seisin in fact, or actual possession, by the wife or by the husband in her right during coverture, has been greatly relaxed in this country, so that in most of the states it is deemed sufficient that the wife had title to the lands, and a potential seisin or right of seisin,^ so that entry could have been made by the voluntary act of the husband, there being no adverse possession. ^ It seems ' Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ; Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 398 ■ Mettie'r v. MiUer, 139 lU. 630 ; s.o. 33 N. E. Rep. 539. See : Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48 ; Wass V. Buoknam, 38 Me. 356 ; Kedus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 614 ; Day V. Cochran, 34 Miss. 377 ; Stephens v. Hume, 35 Mo. 349 ; Harvey v. Wickham, 33 Mo. 113 Reaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 36 McKee v. Cottle", 6 Mo. App. 410 Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Sel- Uck, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 362 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 183 ; Lessee of Merritt v. Home, 5 Ohio St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 398; Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St. 82; Chew V. Commissioners of South- wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160 ; McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 43 U. S. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L. ed. 38, 45 ; Davis V. Mason, 36 U. S. (1 Pet.) 506 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 249. Mississippi doctrine. — Livery of seisin being unknown in Mis- sissippi, and pedis possessio being unnecessary to vest a freehold, an estate by curtesy may be created, in that state, whenever there is a seisin of the wife during the coverture, with actual possession of the husband and wife, or a right to immediate entry by their voluntary act. Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 614. In West Virginia — The mere seisin in liw by a maiTied woman created by her inheriting realty does not entitle her husband to curtesy. Fulton V. Johnson, 24 W. Va. 95. ' Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465 ; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ; Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 398: Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 467 : Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48; Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 175 ; Wass u. Bucknam, 38 Me. 356 ; Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 614 ; Rabb V. Griffin, 36 Miss. 579 ; Day V. Cochran, 34 Miss. 361,377; Reaume v. Chambers, 33 Mo. 30 ; McKee v. Cottle, 6 Mo. App. 416 ; Den exd. Hopper v. Demarest, 21 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 535 ; Jackson exd. Swartwout v. John- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Sel- lick, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 362 ; Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 643 ; Pierce v. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.) L. 446; Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. 367; Mitchell V. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377 ; Borland's Lessee v. Marsiiall, 3 Ohio St. 308 ; Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St. 83; Chew V. Commissioner's of South- wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160 : McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; Barr v. Galloway, 1 McL. C. C. 476; Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 43 U. 8. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L. ed. 38, 45 ; 604 RELAXATION OF RULE— REASON. [Book III. that the rule requiri/ig actual seisin applies only to cases in which seisin is not complete until entry is made, as where the estate descends or is devised to the wife, and not where it is acquired by deed, and is transferred into possession by the statute of uses.-^ Sec. 728. Same— Same— Same— Reason for relaxing rule.— The general tendency of the courts in this country is to disregard the common-law requirements of actual seisin, as being no longer supported by the reason which formerly existed when the feudal regime prevailed. Justice Story says in G-reen v. Liter, ^ that " the object of the law in re- quiring actual seisin was to evince notoriety of title to the neighborhood and the consequent burthens of feudal duties. * * * But in a mere uncultivated country, in wild and impenetrable woods, in the sullen and solitary haunts of beasts of prey, what notoriety could an entry or gathering of a twig or acorn convey to civilized man at the distance of one hundred miles ? " ^ Sec. 729. same— Same— Same— Extent to which rule re- laxed.— While the general tendency is to disregard the Davis V. Mason, 36 U. S. (1 Pet.) Chew v. Commissioners of Soutli- 506 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339 ; wark, 5 Rawle (Pa:) 161 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 80. Stoolfoos v. Jenkins, 8 Serg. & R. A husband may have tenancy by 175. the curtesy though the wife be In the case of Borland's Lessee v. never seized in deed, either Marshall, 3 Ohio St. 308, it is actually or constructively, of said that a husband may have the land, and though the same tenancy by the curtesy though be adversely held during covert- the vvif t' be never seized in deed, ure. either actually or constructive- Mitchell V. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377 ; ly, of the land ; andthough the Borland's Lessee v. Marshall, 3 same be adversely held during Ohio St. 308. coverture. Compare : Den ex d. Hopper v. « 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) 343 ; bk. 3 L. ed. Demarest, 21 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 545. 535. 3 See : McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. ' Jackson ex d. Swartwoutv. John- 468 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Shores «. Carley,90 Mass. (8 Allen) Am. Dec. 433. 425 ; A constructive seisin is all that is Malonev. McLaurin, 40Miss. 161 ; required in all other cases. Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. Day V. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261. 543 ; s.c. 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 168 ; It is sufficient that the wife has Gellespie v. Worford, 3 Cald. title to the lands, etc., and a (Tenn.) 633 ; potential seisin, or right of Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph. seisin. (Tenn.) 398 ; See : Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ; Davis v. Mason, 36 TJ. S. (1 Pet.) Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339. 298 ; Chap. XVII. § 730.] EXTENT OF RELAXATION. 605 requirement of actual seisin, as being no longer supported by the reason which formerly existed, yet the courts have hesitated to go so far as to declare a legal seisin sufficient under all circumstances, but have simply relaxed the rule with reference to certain kinds of land and properties, such as wild, waste, and uncultivated lands,^ and that which lies in grant and not in livery.^ Actual entry and possession is not necessary to give right to hold by cur- tesy in any estate that lies in grant and not in livery, as known to the common law,^ nor is it required in those cases of grant by deed ,where the seisin passes to the grantee by force of the statute of uses.^ Sec. '730. Same— same— Seizure by descent east.— Where a descent is cast upon a married woman during coverture, this is sufficient to support the husband's title to curtesy without entrj^,^ and a devise to executors for payment of debts does not prevent the descent of the freehold and in- heritance ; consequently, in a case of this kind, the estate by curtesy will attach. Thus where a person having issue, a daughter, devised his lands to his executors for payment of his debts, and until his debts were paid, and the executors entered. The daughter married, had issue, 1 See • Post, § 743. Davis v. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) °- It is said in Wells v. Thompson, 503, 507 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239, 240. 13 Ala. 793; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. * Jackson ex d. Swartwoutt). John- 76, that by the conmion law son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 as administered in England it Am. Dec. 433. was essential to an estate by ' Lochon v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) the curtesy that the wife should 009 ; liave had an actual seisin or pos- Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 113 ; session of the land and not the Stephens v. Hume, 2'i Mo. 349 ; bare right to possess, which is Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 30 ; a seisin in law. 1 Steph. Com. Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones 246, et seq. But this rule has (N. C.) L. 297. been relaxed in this country, Tlius where the ancestor of a and if the wife be the owner of married woman died seized and waste, uncultivated lands, not possessed of a tract of land, the held adversely, she is to be Supreme Court of North Caro- deemed seized in fact, so as to lina said that the descent cast, entitle her husband to his right and the title derived from her of curtesy. The title to such ancestor, accordmg to the law property draws to it the posses- of the state, gave her an actual sion ; and that constructive seisin ; and, having had chil- possession continues in judg- dren during her coverture, her ment of law until an adverse husband became tenant by the possession be clearly made out. curtesy. 4 Kent Com. (I3th ed.) 29. Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones 3 Jackson^ Sellick, 8 John. (N. Y.) (N. C.) L. 397. 263; 606 POSSESSION BY COPARCENER. [Book III. and died ; afterwards the debts were paid. The court held that the husband should be tenant by the curtesy.^ Sec. Y31. Same— Same— Seized at time of death.— In some of the states the statutes make the right of the husband to an estate by the curtesy contingent upon the seisin of the wife in possession at the fime of her death. Under these statutes the estate does not become vested in the husband by the birth of issue, as at common law, but is subject to be defeated by disseisin under statute.^ Sec. Y32. Sam.e — Same — Possession by coparcener. — The occupancy of the land by part of several coparceners is sufficient seisin to make the husband tenant by the curtesy of his wife's part, although neither she nor her husband had ever lived upon the land or exercised any act of ownership over it.^ Thus, where land descended to several coparceners, one of whom afterwards married, had issue, and died without she or her husband having lived upon or exercised any act of ownership over the land, but permitted it to remain in the possession of the coparceners, the court held that this was a suflBcient seizure in fact to sustain the husband's claim as tenant by the curtesy.* And where a person, in right of his wife, became a partner, with others, in the ownership of a cotton factory and other mills, and in the management of the business thereof, and received a proportionate share of the profits, from the time his wife became interested therein until after her death, this was held to be a sufficient seisin of the wife to consummate the estate by the curtesy in the husband.^ Sec. 'r33. Same— Same— Possession by co-tenant.- The seisin or possession of one co-tenant in common is so far the seisin and possession of all the other co-tenants as to enable the husband of one such co-tenant in common to ' Manning's Case, 8 Co. 96a. Barb. (N. Y.) 43 ; See: Robertsons. Stevens, llred. DeGrey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. (N. C.) Eq. 247. 469. ■^ See : Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. ■• Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679 ; » Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 747. s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 747. <• Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. See : Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Y.) 43. Chap. XVII. § 734.] POSSESSION BY CO-TENANT. 607 claim by the curtesy in the wife's part,^ though she die before actual entry .^ Thus where the ancestors of a married woman died seized and possessed of a tract of land, and one of the wife's co-tenants made an actual entry, the possession of this co-heir was held to be the posses- sion of all the heirs, and to entitle the husband of one of the deceased heirs to curtesy in her share of the estate.^ Consequently the right to claim by the curtesy will not be lost by the abandonment of the premises to a co-tenant in common.* The law in this respect in this country is in accord with that of England, as found in the case of Sterlings. Penlington,^ but differs from that in force in England since the passage of the statute of William IV. ^ Sec. T34. same— Same— Possession by wife's tenant.— It is a sufficient seisin for the purpose of curtesy, without entry,^ or any receipt of rents,^ even at common law, where the wife has a tenant in possession who holds ' Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179 ; Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401 ; Wass V. Buckman, 38 Me. 360 Day V. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 43 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 388; Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Dunscomb v. Dunscomb's Exrs., I John. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; Carter v. WiUiams, 8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 177 ; Childers v. Bumgamer, 8 Jones (N. C.) L. 397 ; Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.) 345 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545 ; DeGrey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469; Sterling v. Penlington, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 730 ; s.c. 14 Vin. Abr. 513, pi. 5 ; 7 Id. 150. pi. 11. In England, this was formerly the rule (see : Sterling v. Penling- ton, sicpra), but the rule was changed by the statute 3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 37, § 13. See : CuUey v. Doe d. Taylerson, II Ad. & E. 1008 ; s.c. 39 Eng. C. L. 527 ; , . ^ Dos d. Holt V. Harrocks, 1 Car. &K. 566 ; s.c. 47 Eng. C. L.545. ' Sterling v. Penlington, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 730 ; s.c. 14 Vin. Abr. 512, pi. 5 ; 7 Id. 150, pi. 11. 8 Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones (N. C.) L. 397. ^ Wass V. Buckman, 38 Me. 356 ; Buckley i\ Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 43 ; Dunscomb v. Dunscomb's Exrs., I John. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones (N. C.) L. 297. ii7 Vin. Abr. 150, pi. 11. «3aad4Wm. IV.,c. 27, § 12. See : CuUey v. Doe d. Taylerson, II Ad. & E. 1008 ; s.c. 39 Eng. C. L. 527 ; Doe d. Holt V. Horrocks, 1 Car. & K. 566 ; s.c. 47 Eng. C. L. 545. ■" Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Deo. 438. 8 Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 388; Ellsworth V. Cook, v. Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 643 ; Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 177 : Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ; Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.) 229 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545. 608 POSSIISSION BY WIFE'S TENANT. [Book III. from year to year, at will, or at sufferance ; ^ the tenant in such case holding the estate as quasi bailee of the wife.^ The same is true where the estate descends to the wife subject to a tenancy for years in another, and the wife dies before receiving rent,^ the possession of the lessee for years being the possession of the person to whom the inheritance descends, even before entry or receipt of rent.* In the case of Grey v. Eichardson,^ an estate- tail de- scended from her brother to A, who was married and had no issue ; the lapds were let on leases for years, and the rents were payable at Michaelmas and Lady-day. The tenants, being greatly in arrear, did not receive any of the Lady-day rents, but died four months after that time ; nor did any other person receive rent during her life. The question was, whether her husband was entitled to be tenant by the curtesy. Lord Hardwicke said, if A had died before Lady-day, there could not have been a doubt of the husband's right to curtesy, because he could do nothing till the rent became due. The only objection arose from the neglect of the husband in not distraining for the rent which became due at Lady-day. The receipt of rent would have amounted to an actual seisin. If the representatives of the brother had received any rent dur- ing the life of the wife, it would have been a material ' Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) 161 ; 339, 345 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 550 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. DeGrey v. Richardson. 3 Atk. 469. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74; ^ Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. MOn. s.c. 15 Am. Deo. 433; (Ky.) 179 ; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ; Mackey i}. Proctor, 13 B. Mon. Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St. (Ky.) 433 ; 82 ; Day v. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ; Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 245 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545. 388 ; « Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- (Ky.) 179 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 : s.c. 15 VanarsdaU v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. Am. Dec. 433 : Mon. (Ky.) 401 ; Carter v. WiUiams, 8 Ired. (N. C.) Wass V. Buokman, 35 Me. 360 ; Eq. 177 ; Day V. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) 388 ; 339, 345 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- 550 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 DeGrey v. Richardson, 3 Atk. Am. Dec. 433 ; 469. Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. (N. * 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th ed.) 156. C.) Eq. 177 ; '3 Atk. 469. Chap. XVII. §§ 735-737.] RECEIVING RENTS AND PROFITS. G09 objection ; but no part of the rent which accrued after the death of the brother was ever received by the wife, or by any other person ; so that the possession of the lessee was the possession of the wife ; nor could there be any other without making the husband a trespasser. The court decreed that the husband was entitled to be tenant by the curtesy. Sec. 735. Same— Same — Same— Lease for life before mar- riage.— There seems to be an exception to the general rule above stated, in those cases where the wife's estate was leased by her for life before her marriage. If the rent be reserved it seems doubtful whether the husband will be entitled to have curtesy of it ; but in a similar case Lord Coke was of the opinion that the wife should have dower. ^ Sec. T36. Same— Same— Same— Keeeiving rents and profits. — The receipt of rents and profits by the wife during cov- erture, or by the husband for her, is sufficient seisin to give the husband a right to an estate by curtesy, ^ even in those states where the rule of actual seisin is insisted upon; ^ but a devise to a woman of the sole control of all the income from an estate, without accountability, does not give such possession or seisin of the trust estate as to entitle the husband to curtesy therein where the doctrine of actual seisin is maintained.* Sec. 737. Same— Same— Possession by husband— Kentucky doctrine.— In some of the states, and particularly Ken- tucky, actual possession by the husband of the lands of his wife, at the time of or during coverture, is in general necessary to constitute the husband tenant by the curtesy, 1 1 Cn Tnst 29a 32a See : Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. See: Stoddardl Gibbs, 1 Sumn. (8 Cr.) 229, 245 ; bk. 3 L. ed. C C 263 545, 550. ' Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) ' Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179 l^^- If land is in lease for years, curt- ^ Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush (Ky.) esy may be without entry, or 550. u i o am even receipts of rents, the pos- See : Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. session of the lessee being 717 ; o ^t- ™ deemed the possession of the Sweetapple v. Bmdon, 2 Vem. husband and wife. 537n. Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170. 39 610 POSSESSION BY HUSBAND'S GEANTEE. [Book III. after her death ; ^ and in case he was not so seized, he has no right in the land, which will prevent the heir, during the life of the husband, from maintaining ejectment against an adverse holder.^ Possession by the immediate or remote vendee of the husband, or by any person under authority of the husband, is sufficient.^ Sec. '738. Same— Same— Possession by husband's grantee. — It seems that in some of the states, if the grantee of the husband enters upon the land of the wife, and holds possession under such grant, he will have the rights of a tenant by curtesy against the heirs of the wife during the life of the husband, notwithstanding the fact that the latter never had actual possession of the premises.* Thus in the case of Nixon v. Williams," where the wife of the plaintiff, who was dead, was entitled to the land in dispute as heir at law, and her husband rented it as ten- ant of the ancestor's widow, but the wife lived on the land, the court held that she had such a seisin as entitled her husband to an estate by the curtesy. Sec. Y39. Same— Same— Seisin by guardian.— Where the wife is married while a minor, and her guardian retains the possession of the land after her marriage, the seisin and possession of the guardian is the seisin and posses- sion of the wife, and will support the claim of the husband to curtesy ; ^ and the possession of land by a tenant, who leased the same from such guardian, is, in law, the pos- session of the ward, and such possession by the ward, at the time of her marriage, entitles her husband to tenancy by the curtesy.^ Sec. 740. Same— Same— Equitable title and seisin.— At common law the husband's right of curtesy exists in ' Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401 ; Mon. (Ky.) 401. Nixon v. WUliams, 95 N. C. 103. See : Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 « 95 N. C. 103. B. Mon. (Ky.) 467. "■ Phillips v. Phillips, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 2 Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 18 B. Mon. 549 ; (Ky.) 467. Powell ■;;. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. » Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. (Ky.) 179. Mon. (Ky.) 401. ■■ Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. " Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. (Ky.) 179. Chap. XVII. § 741.] EQUITABLE TITLE AND SEISIN. 611 trust estates as well as legal estates,^ where the trust estate is an estate of inheritance, of which the wife had an equity that answered to a seisin at law of legal estates in possession.^ And in all cases where curtesy is sought in an equitable estate, an equitable seisin is suffi- cient, and the receipt by the cesttd que trust of the rents, issues, and profits, or an actual possession of the land by her trustee, will be sufficient seisin to uphold the estate by curtesy,^ but it is not sufficient seisin of a trust estate, that the wife had the rents and profits of the estate, if it was by the terms of the trust to her own separate use, because her seisin in such case would not inure to the benefit of the husband.^ A surviving husband takes an estate by the curtesy in lands to which his wife acquired an equitable title, and of which she took possession jointly with him, claiming for herself under her muniment of title.s Sec. 741. Same— Same— Same— Exception to the rule.— But a mere naked seisin by the wife, or trustee, is not sufficient to entitle her husband to dower by the curtesy,^ even though she should become entitled to the reversion of the equitable estate after the equitable life estate of another, but dies before such intermediate estate is determined.^ ' See : Schermerhom v. Miller, 3 Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Mad. 408 ; Cow. (N. Y.) 439 ; Watts v. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 109 ; Dunscombew.Dunscombe'sExrs., Sweetapple v. Bindon, 3 Vern. 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; 537, n. 3. Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C. ^ Cushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 363 ; Stew.) 689 ; Eobison v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C. C. Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; 131 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 31. Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 603, * Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush (Ky.) 606; 550; Dodson V. Hay, 3 Bro. C. C. 404 ; Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 717 ; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 8 Pr. Wms. Sweetapple v. Bindon, 3 Vern. 239 ; 537, n. 3. Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 108 ; ' Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. Sweetapple v. Bindon, 3 Vern. 595. r., ^ -,a ^ a. 536 ; « See : Eigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. Cunningham v. Moody, 1 Ves. 361; gj. 174 Stockes V. McKibbm, 13 Pa. St. 'Eobison v. Codman,! Sumn. C. ^^^^"^ ' „ . . ^c .x. Q -j^gi . Chew u. Commissioners of South- Davis V. Mason, 26 V. S. (1 Pet.) wark, 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160. 503 508 • bk 7 L. ed. 239, 241 ; ' Chew v. Commissioners of South- ■ Hearie v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 695, wark, 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160. 717; 612 ACTUAL ENTRY. [BOOK HI. Sec. 14:2. Same— Same— Actual entry.— The general rule of law is that there must be an entry during coverture to enable the husband to claim a tenancy by the curtesy.^ But where a descent is cast upon a married woman dur- ing coverture, entry by the wife is not necessary to sup- port curtesy in the husband,^ and in some of the states, such as Connecticut,^ Ohio,* Pennsylvania,^ and perhaps other states, adverse possession does not necessitate an actual entry ; *^ but it is said in the case of Mercer's Lessee V. Selden,^ that the general rule is, that there must be an entry during coverture, to enable a husband to claim a tenancy by the curtesy. Sec. 'r4:3. Sam.e— Same — Sam.e— Wild, waste, and unculti- vated lands.— The right of possession of wild, waste, and uncultivated lands draws to it the possession, if the lands are not held adversely ; consequently, where the other incidents necessary to the creation of the estate by curtesy exist, a husband becomes tenant by the curtesy of wild, waste, and uncultivated land, not held adversely by another, of which the wife had the legal seisin.^ The ' Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 42 U. Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. Jolin- S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk. 11 L. ed. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74'; s.c. 15 38. Am. Dec. 433 ; It was held by the Supreme Court Adair v. Lett, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 183 ; of Kentucky in the ca.se of Van- Childers ?;. Bumgarner, 8 Jones arsdall v. Fauntleroy's Heirs, (N. C.) L. 297 ; 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401, that where Chew v. Commissioner of South- a husband and wife execute a wark, 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160. deed of the wife's unimproved * Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ; land, purporting to pass the Bush v. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) fee, and the deed is ineffective 298. . for want of a proper certificate * Merritt's Lessee v. Home, 5 Ohio of acknowledgment, the entry St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 298 ; of the grantees under the deed Borland's Lessee v. Marshall, 2 is a suflftcient seisin to support Ohio St. 308. curtesy, and uphold, until the ^ Stoolfoos v. Jenkins, 8 Serg. & E. husband's death, the possession (Pa.) 175. of the grantee. « See : Post, § 745. A recovery m ejectment by the hus- ■> 42 U. S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk. 11 L. band and wife has been held ed. 38. equivalent to an actual entry. « Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; (N. Y.) 643. Mettler v. Miller, 129 111. 630 ; s.c. • Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679 ; 22 N. E. Bep. 529 ; S.C. 15 Am. Rep. 747 ; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ; Day V. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ; s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ; Stephens v. Hume, 25 Mo. 349 ; Day v. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 277 ; Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 112, Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Selliok, • „ 115 ; 8 John. (N. Y.) 262 ; Keaume v. Chambers, 32 Mo. 36 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- Chap. XVII. § 743.1 SEISIN OF WILD LANDS. 613 general rule that there must be an entry, and the wife must have actual seisin during coverture to entitle the husband to curtesy,^ is not applied to such lands in this country.^ Where the wife is the owner of such lands, she is deemed in possession, so as to entitle her husband to curtesy, though there has been no actual possession,^ even though the husband states that he never owned the premises, and never went through the formal cere- mony of putting his foot on the land.* son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.o. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Merritt's Lessee r". Home, 5 Ohio St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 398; McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 267; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 16.") ; Mercer's Lessee r. Selden, 41 U. S. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L. ed. 38 ; Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) 339, 349 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 553. Compare : Neely i'. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Kt.) 48. In Alabama, a husband is said to be entitled to his curtesy in wild and uncultivated lands of which the wife died lia ving only the legal seisin, where they were not held adversely to her and the other conditions of curtesy Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 791 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76. In Illinois, the common-law rule requiring actual possession as a precedent to curtesy does not apply to wild, vacant, or unoc- cupied lands of the wife. Mettler v. Miller, 129 lU. 630 ; s.c. 23 N. E. Rep. 539. A different mle, however, prevails in Kentucky, where a feme sole, possessed of a large tract of wUd and uncultivated land, married, and had issue, and afterwards died, her husband and child surviving, and where neither she nor her husband had actual possession of the land, but he had paid the taxes on it from the time of the mar- riage, and there was no claim of adverse possession, it was held, that as there was no actual seisin by the wife or husband during coverture, he was not tenant by the curtesy, as actual seisin was necessary in that state to create that es- tate, and that the husband was bound to strengthen the title of his wife to lands by actual possession, so as to protect them against advereary claims. Noely V. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48. ' See : Mercer's Lessee r. Selden, 43 U. S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk 11 L. ed. 38. ' See : Pierce r. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.) L. 446 ; Barr v. Galloway, 1 McL. C. C. 476. Perception of theesplees. — An entry on wild land is not necessary to enable the husband to claim as tenant by the curtesy ; be- cause the perception of the es- plees is evidence of seisin, but this is presumed under a deed. Barr i: Galloway, 1 McL. C. C. 476. ' Jackson ex d. Beekman v. SeUick, 8 John. (N. Y.) 26C ; Pierce v. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.) L. 446 ; McCorry v. King, 8 Humph. • (Tenn.) 367 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 165; Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 506 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239 ; Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) 229, 249 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 552. A constmctive seisin of wUd lands, not adversely possessed, in a wife, whether claiming as heir by devise or deed, is sufficient to entitle the husband to curt- esy. McCorry v. King, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 367 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 165. * Pierce v. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.) L. 446. 614 ADVEESE POSSESSION. [Book III. Sec. T44. Same— Same— Time of seisin.— The seisin of tha wife necessary to entitle the husband to hold the estate by the curtesy must be some time during coverture. The time when the seisin commences, whether before or after issue born, is immaterial ; for if a man marries a woman seized in fee, is disseized, and then has issue, and the wife dies, he shall enter and hold by the curtesy. The same is true where there is issue which dies before the descent of the lands on the wife.^ Sec. 745. Same— same— Adverse possession.— At common law a husband is not entitled to curtesy in lands of which his wife did not have the seisin ; consequently pos- session by one claiming adverse title will preclude the husband's right of curtesy, if the seisin is not regained during coverture. ^ In this country the rules of the com- mon law are not strictly enforced in this respect, and seisin in fact on the part of the wife is not essential to constitute the husband tenant by the curtesy ; seisin in law, as we have already seen,^ being sufficient for that purpose.* In some of the states where a wife was seized of land during her intermarriage, and there was issue of the marriage, the husband may be tenant by the curtesy, even if the land was adversely held during the coverture.^ Sec. 7iG. Same— Same— Remainder and reversion. — It is a general rule that the estate must be an estate in posses- 1 Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- not an interest in the property, son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 the ownership of which was in Am. Dec. 443 ; the devisee. 1 Inst. 30a. s See ; Ante, §§ 727-729. - Den ex d. Hopper v. Demarest, 21 ^ Jackson ex d. Swartwovit v. John- N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 525. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 In Rankin's Appeal, 188 Pa. 327; Am. Dec. 433. s.c. 16 Atl. Rep. 82 ; 3 L. R. A. ' Connecticut : Kline v. Beebe, 6 429, the court say that though. Conn. 494 ; under the wUl, the executors Bush i;. Bradley,4 Day (Conn.) 298. had the power to sell the coal Ohio : Mitchell v. Ryan, 30 Ohio and mining privileges if they St. 377 ; should deem it expedient, and Merritt's Lessee v. Home, 5 Ohio though they paid taxes on the St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 298 ; property, and sold coal from it, Borland's Lessee v. Marshall, 20 and the devisee never had actual Ohio St. 308. possession, the surviving hus- Pennsylvania : Stoolfoos v. Jen- band would be tenant by the kias, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 175. curtesy upon the death of the Confra— Mercer's Lessee v. Sel- wife, leaving issue of their mar- den, 42 U. S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk. riage, as the power of sale was 11 L. ed. 38. Chap. XVII. § 746.] REMAINDER AND REVERSION. 615 sion to entitle the husband to curtesy; no such state exist- ing in a reversion expectant on a life interest or other estate of freehold/ unless the estate be determined dur- ing the coverture ; ^ but to defeat the right to curtesy the outstanding estate must be a freehold, for an outstand- ing term of years will not have that effect,^ however long it may be,* for the tenant for years is vested with the term only, and not with the land, the possession of the termor being the possession of the husband and wife.^ Thus in Carter x\ Williams ® a testator devised land to his wife durante viduitate, or until his son should arrive at the age of twenty-one years ; and then devised the land to his children, one-third thereof on the death of the widow, and the other two-thirds iipon her marriage. A daughter of the testator married, had issue and died, leaving a husband, before the son arrived at twenty-one. On the same attaining the age of twenty-one the husband of the deceased daughter claimed curtesj', and the court held that he was entitled to curtesy in two-thirds of the estate, the widow's interest therein being for years only ; that is, until the son attained twenty-one, but that he was not entitled to curtesy in the third held by the widow for life, her estate therein being a freehold.'^ ' Mackey v. Proctor, 12 B. Mon. is entitled to remain in the (Ky.)433; mansion-house, and the mes- 2 BI. Com. 137 ; ' suage and land tliereto belong- Watk. Desc. (4th ed.) Ill, 121. ing, without being charged See : Post, this cliapter, sections -with rent. A died under such II. & III. a statute leaving a widow and - Watkins r. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. eight children, all infants but 867. one. Dower was never as- " Weir y. Humphries, 4 Ired. (N. C.) signed, and she remained in Eq. 270. possession of the mansion-house ■• Lessee of Lowry r. Steele, 4 Ohio and plantation until her death 172. in 1866, cultivating and renting See : Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. out the land in her own name, ^N. C.) Eq. 177 ; and using and disposing of the Robertson v. Stevens, 1 Ired. (N. profits at her own pleasure ; C.) Eq. 247. her children being with her, ' See : 2 Bl. Com. 144; and supported by her until their 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, Har- death or marriage. B, one of grave's note. the daughters, married C, had « 8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 177. issue born alive, and died in 'The same doctrine was held in the the lifetime other mother. case of Robertson v. Stevens, 1 The court held that C was not Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 247. entitled to curtesy in the land, B Exception to the rtde exists in those not having been seized during states where by statute, until her lifetime. dower is assigned, the widow Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129. (516 ISSUE OF MARRIAGE. [BOOK III. Sec. YiT. Same— 3. Issue of marriage.— The third requi- site at common law to entitle a husband to an estate by the curtesy is issue of the marriage.^ The basis upon which this doctrine rested was the theory that the husband's estate by the curtesy was only a continuation of the wife's estate of inheritance, entrusted to him for the benefit of the issue. During feudal times, on the birth of issue the husband did homage alone, and was called tenant by the curtesy initiate ; ^ and although the custom of doing homage has long since ceased, the husband is still said to be tenant by the curtesy initiate upon the birth of issue alive, during the lifetime of the wife, and capable of inheriting.^ But to entitle a husband to an estate by the curtesy, such issue must have the following qualities, to wit : must — a. Be born alive ; 6. Be born in the lifetime of the mother ; and c. Be capable of inheriting the estate. But all these qualities need not concur in time. Sec. 748. Same— Same— Change of rule by statute.— The common-law rule requiring the birth of issue to entitle the husband to curtesy has been changed in some of the states of the Union, so that a surviving husband will be entitled to curtesy in the lands of which his wife was seized although there was "qo issue of the marriage.* This is the case in Alabama,^ Minnesota, "^ Michigan,''' Nebraska,*" Ohio,^ Oregon,^" and Pennsylvania," since the passage of the married woman's act.^^ ' 2 Bl. Com. 137, 128 ; ' 2 Mich. Comp. L. (1857), c. 89, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. § 30, p. 856. See: Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. « Neb. Comp. Stat. (1881), c. 23, § 29, 50 ; p. 315. Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. » Ohio Eev. Stat. (1880), 8 4176, p. (N. Y.)168; 1046. Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. " Oreg. Gen. Laws (1843-72), c. 595 ; XVII., tit. II., § 30, p. 588. Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326. " Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 154 ; ^ As to homage, see : Ante, § 714. Lancaster Co. Bank v. Staufler, » See : Post, %% 749, 753, 753. 10 Pa. St. 398 ; As a right of second husband to Gamble's Estate, 5 Clark (Pa.) curtesy, see : Post, § 756. 4 ; s.o. 1 Parsons (Pa.) 489 ; 1 * See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 29. Sel. Eq. Cas. 489; ' Also Code 1876, tit. 5, c. 1, § 3714. Dunlop's Laws, 510 ; « 1 Stat, at Large (BisseU ed. 1873), Rev. Stats. 1846, c. 403, p. 504. c. 33, § 164, p. 630. '^ April 8, 1833. Chap. XVII. § 749.] ISSUE BORN ALIVE. 617 Sec. 749. Same— Same— a. Born alive.— By the common law, to entitle the husband to curtesy, there must not only be issue of the marriage, but such issue must have been born alive ; ^ and this rule of the common law pre- vails in all the states of the Union where birth of issue is not dispensed with by statute.^ Consequently the de- livery of a child, after the death of the mother, by means of the Caesarian operation, will not give the husband a right to an estate by the curtesy, though such child is con- sidered in esse before the birth, for its own benefit.^ By the old law it was deemed necessary not only that the child should be born alive, but that it should be heard to cry out ; and the fact that it did so cry out was to be proved by the persons who actually heard it, not by those who learned of it by hearsay.* This doctrine was prob- ably based on the occurrence in a writ used in the eleventh year of the reign of Henry III. of the clause ' ' et ipse postmodum exae prolem suscitaverit, cujus clamor audi- tus f uerit inter quatuor parietes. '' This is no longer in accord with the law, if it ever was, and the cry of the child is now simply regarded as one amongst other proofs of life.^ The burden of proof is on the person claiming as tenant by the curtesy to show an existence of inde- pendent separate life in the issue after birth ; ^ the dec- larations of the wife, made shortly after the birth of the child, that it had been born alive, are not competent evi- dence to establish her husband's title to an estate by the curtesy.'' A child is born alive within the meaning of the rule as to curtesy, when it tries to breathe after being fully delivered external to the mother, although it is dead when the navel cord is cut.^ See : Pa. Rev. St. 1846, c. 403, p. Compare : Tyl. Inf. & Cov. (2d 504. ed.), «^ 281. ' 3 Bl. Com. 127 ; ^ See : 2 Bl. Cora. 137 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39b. Bract. 4S8a ; « See : Nicrosi v. Phillippi, 91 Ala. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b; 399 ; s.c. 8 So. Rep. 561 ; Prince's Case, 8 Co. 24b ; Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. Holmes' Case, Dyer 25b. E Gr.) 304. ' 3 Bl. Com. 137 ; ' Marsellis v.ThalMmer, 3 Paige Ch. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. (N. Y.) 35 ; 8.0. 21 Am. Deo. 66. " Doe v. Killen. 5 Del. 14. See : Post, § 750. ' Gardner v. Klutts, 8 Jones (N. C.) See: Matter of Winne. 1 Lans. L. 375; s.c. 80 Am. Deo. 331. (N. Y.) 513. * GrofiE V. Anderson, 15 S. W. Rep. 618 DEGREE OF DEVELOPMENT. [Book III. Sec. 750. Same— Same— Same— Degree of development and vitality.— An unborn child, after conception, is to be con- sidered in esse for every purpose which is for its own benefit,^ but not for another person.^ Consequently, if the child is born in such an early state of pregnancy as to be incapable of living, it has been held that it is to be con- sidered as if it had never been born or conceived. Chil- dren born v^rithin the first six months after conception are considered as incapable of living ; and for that reason although they are apparently born alive, if they do not in fact survive so long as to rebut this presumption, they 866; s.o. 11 L. E. A. 825; 12 Ky. L. Rep. 888. Doe V. Killen criticised. — In the case of Goflfi;. Anderson, supra, the court say : " Counsel has cited the case of Doe v. Killen, 5 Houst. (Del.) 14, where the judge, upon trial of an action of ejectment between the sur- viving husband and heirs at law, charged the jury that to find for the former they must believe that the child was bom aUve, having an independent circulation and existence of its own, apart from the mother, and by force of the child's own inherent vitality ; and, though not dii'ectly so stated, it may be inferred the judge intended such independent circulation should exist after the navel cord was cut. We have been referred to no other authority for such view, and we cannot sanction it ; for a child when delivered is eitlier alive or dead for aU purposes, and to make its legal existence date from the time a physician may in his wisdom see proper to cut the navel cord is without rea- son, and contrary to the plain meaning and intent of our stat- ute. We think the court prop- erly found the child in question was born alive, and that the appellee was entitled as tenant by the curtesy to the land owned by his wife." ' See : Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2 Cox Eq. Cas. 425 ; In re Corlass, 1 Ch. D. 460, 463 ; s.c. 45 L. J. Ch. 118: Doe ex d. Clarke v. Clarke, 2 H. BI. 899, 401 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 430: Hale V. Hale, Free. Ch. 50 ; Burdet v. Hopegood, 1 Pr. Wms. 486; Northbey v. Strange, 1 Pr. Wms. 342; Beale v. Beale, 1 Pr. Wms. 245 ; Thellusson v. Woodford, 4 Ves. 227; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 205; af&rmed 11 Ves. 112 ; s.c. 1 Ros. & P. (N. R.) 357 ; 8 Rev. Rep. 104. A child is not considered in esse for another's benefit vvhen it is afterwards born dead, or bom too soon after conception to be capable of living, the maxim of the common law being mortuus exitus non est exitus. Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.c. Am. Dec. 66 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. While a child en ventre sa mere may, at the present day, be con- sidered as in esse for all pur- poses (Tliellusson v. Woodford, 4 Ves. 227 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 205 ; affirmed 11 Ves. 112 ; s.c. 1 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 357 ; 8 Rev. Rep. 104), yet one of the dif- ficulties suggested by Lord Coke still exists, viz. ; The es- tate during the interval suc- ceeding the wife's death de- scends to her next heir, and is not divested ab initio by the subsequent birth of the child. See : Basset v. Basset, 3 Atk. 207; Goodtitle v. Newman, 3 Wils. 516. Chap. XVII. § 751.] DEATH OF ISSUE. 619 Avill be incapable of inlieriting so as to transmit the prop- erty to others.^ Sec. T51. same— Same— Same— Death of issue. — Where issue has been born alive, and capable of inheriting, dur- ing the lifetime of the mother, it matters not whether it dies before or after its mother, or how long it lives after its birth, for its existence, though but for an instant, clothes the husband with an estate by the curtesy initiate,^ which is not divested by the death of the child before the mother's seisin accrues,^ because the essentials to entitle the husband to an estate by the curtesy need not coincide in point of time.* Thus where land is devised in fee-tail to the testator's daughter, and on her death without issue to her executors, to be sold, and the daughter marries and has issue, which dies in her life- time, her husband, surviving her, will be entitled to a tenancy by the curtesy, and the executors cannot sell the estate until after the determination of the life estate of the husband.^ Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.o. 21 Am. Dec. 66 ; Code Napoleon, art. 313, 72.j, 906 ; Code La., art. 205 ; Dig., lib. 38, tit. 16, 1. 3, s. 12 ; lib. 1, tit. 5, 1. 13 ; Domat. Prel. B., tit. 3, s. 1, art. 5. The civil law mle.— Although by the civil law of successions a posthumous child was entitled to the same rights as those who were born in the lifetime of the decedent, it was only on the condition that they were born alive and under such circum- stances that the law presumed they would survive. The rules on this subject are found in Domat, in the Napoleon Code, and in the Civil Code of Louisi- ana. Children in the mother's womb are considei'ed, in what- ever relates to themselves, as if already born; but children bom dead, or in such an early state of pregnancvas to be incapable of living, although they be not actually dead at the time of their birth, are considered as if they had never been born or conceived. Civil Code La. 28, 29 ; Code Napoleon, art. 725, 906 ; Domat, Prel. B., tit. 2, s. 1, art. 4-6 ; pt. 3, lib. 2, tit. 1, s. 1, art. 6, 7. Still-bom children are not counted in the number of children who succeed ; and although they were alive in the mother's womb at the time of the suc- cessions which concerned them fell, yet they have no share in tliem, for they are considered in the same manner as if they had never been born. Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 35, 41 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 66, 69. 2 See : Ante, § 715. 3 Taliaferro v. Burwell, 4 Cal. 331 ; Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 398; Phillips V. Phillips, 3 Duv. (Ky.) 549; Malone i\ McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161; Hay V. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 303 ; Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. 595. 4 See : Post, § 758. <• Hay V. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 208 ; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 453. 620 BIRTH IN WIFE'S LIFETIME. Book III. Sec. 752. Same— Same— to. In lifetime of wife.— The estate by the curtesy being considered a continuance of the inheritance, given to the husband for the benefit of the issue of the marriage, it naturally followed that there must be issue born alive,^ in the lifetime of the wife,^ to entitle the husband to curtesy.^ Should the wife die in the pains of parturition, and the child be delivered by the Caesarian operation, there could be no curtesy at com- mon law, because the child was not born during the covert- ure.* In such a case the husband had no title to curtesy because no issue of the marriage had been born, but the child en ventre sa mere is to be considered as in existence for the purposes of inheritance,^ and the land descended to the child, while in his mother's womb ; and the estate being once so vested shall not be taken from him and his heirs.^ Sec. Y53. Sam.e— Same— c. Be capatole of inheriting. — The estate by curtesy being considered, as we have seen, a continuation of the inheritance transferred to the hus- band for the benefit of the issue of the marriage, it is not only necessary that there should be issue of that mar- riage,' born alive, during the lifetime of the wife, but also capable of inheriting the estate. ^ Hence, where there is issue that could not by any possibility^ inherit the mother's estate as heir, as where a woman is seized in tail male, and has issue a daughter only, in that case ' See : Ante, § 749. qu'il auroit donne des signes de 2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. vie par des oris ou autrement. 3 2 Bl. Com. 127, 128 ; 1 Flauat, Coutumes de Norman- 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. die, 613. See : Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. * See : Ante, § 750. (3 C. E. Gr.) 204 ; « 1 Inst. 29b. Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35a. See : Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 3 * 2 Bl. Com. 130 ; Paige. Ch. (N. Y.) 85 ; s.c. 21 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. Am. Dec. 66. See : Eyan v. Freeman, 36 Miss. ' Bastard issue of marriage when. — 175 ; , Where a statute exists legiti- Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) mizing issue born out of wed- 508 ; s.c. 2 Id. 21 ; look by the parents subse- Marselhs v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige quently marrying, this issue Ch. (N. Y.) 85, 42 ; s.c. 21 Am. fulfills the condition. Dec. 66 ; Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965. Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35a. s Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 286 ; The rule in Normandy, whence the Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ; estate of curtesy was probably Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261 ; derived, is thus stated : II faut Paine's Case, 8 Co. 34 ; qu'il soit sorti du ventre de la 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. mere, il ne suffiroit pas que la " Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35b. tete eut paru et qu'on pretendit Chap. XVII. §§ 754-756.] DEVISED TO WIFE AND HEIRS. 621 the surviving husband could take no estate by the curt- esy/ for the daughter cannot by possibiHty inherit the estate from her mother.^ Sec. ^54. Same — Same — Same — Seisin toy wife.— The general rule of law is that no person can be heir to an ances- tor, unless such ancestor died seized ; and from this rule, doubtless, sprang the doctrine which requires an actual seisin in the wife to entitle the husband to curtesy ; for, without such an actual seisin, her issue would not be capable of inheriting from her.^ Another reason for this rule depriving the husband of curtesy unless the wife has actual seisin of all estates of which actual seisin could be had, is the fact that the husband had it in his power to obtain for his wife an actual seisin, and his neglect to do so is such negligence as to defeat liis estate. Sec. T55. Same— Same— Same— Estate devised to wife and heirs.— In a case where the devise was to a woman and her heirs, but if she died leaving issue, then to such issue and their heirs, and she died leaving issue, it was held that her surviving husband was not entitled to curtesy, as the children took by purchase, and the wife had not such an estate as could descend upon them.* Sec. 756. Same — Same — Same — Gives second husband curtesy.— By the common law, where a woman seized in fee-simple married, had issue, after which her husband died, and she took another husband, by whom she also had issue, such second husband was tenant by the curtesy on the death of the wife, although the issue of the first husband was living, because his issue by possibility might inherit, should the issue of the first marriage die without issue. ^ The fact that the lands are held adversely when ' 3 Bl. Com. 128 ; Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; See • Heath v. White, 5 Conn. Graham v. Luddington, 1 Hun, 328,236; (N. Y.) 251. Day V. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261 ; " Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 249. Paine's Case, 8 Co. 85b. " Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35b ; ! 3 Bl. Com. 31. Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 23 ; See : Parker v. Carter, 4 Hare 1 Co. Inst. 30a. 4lg See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 233 ; 3 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 144, Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. ^ 23. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; See : Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433. 622 CURTESY IN SECOND HUSBAND. [BOOK III. the child is born does not defeat the husband's right. ^ Glanville^ and Bracton^ both agree that the second hus- band was equally entitled with the first to the estate by curtesy. It seems that one Stephanus de Segrave, whose name we find among the justices itinerant in the reign of Henry III., had written a treatise, in which he had combated this opinion, as founded on a misconcep- tion of the meaning and design of this sort of estate. He thought there was an injustice in giving an estate per legem Anglice to the second husband, more especially when there were children alive of the first marriage.* The statute De Bonis declared that the second husband of a woman to whom lands had been given in tail should not claim anything per legem Anglice, in such conditional gift ; nor the issue of such second husband claim any- thing by descent ; but that immediately upon the death of a man and woman to whom land was so given, it should revert to their issue, or to the donor or his heir, so that the law, in this particular, as laid down both by Glanville and Bracton, was changed ; and the opinion maintained by Stephanus de Segrave was established.^ Sec. T57. Same— Same— Same— Wife's attainder.— At com- mon law, if the wife had issue, and was afterwards at- tainted of felony, the issue could not inherit from her, yet the husband held as tenant by the curtesy, because of the issue born before the felony, which by possibility might have inherited from the mother ; but if the wife was at- tainted of felony before issue had, the husband could not be tenant by the curtesy, although she afterwards had issue.^ We have already seen that treason or felony does not work corruption of blood, ^ and for this reason the rule of the common law has no application here. It is said in the case of Heath v. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y ) 74 • s c 15 White, 5 Conn. 236, that the Am. Dec. 433. husband's right of curtesy upon See: Guion v. Anderson, 8 the birth of a child by him Humph. (Tenn.) 307. takes precedence over any = See : Glanv. lib. 7, c. 18. claim by descent of a son of the * See : Bract. 43713. wife by a prior marriage ; but * 1 Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) under the statute of Michigan 298. a different doctrine prevails. ' 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)165. Hathorn v. Lyon. 2 Mich. 93. « 1 Co. Inst. 40a. ' Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- ' See : Ante, § Chap. XVII. § 758.] COINCIDENCE IN TIME. 623 Sec. 'r58. Same — Same— d. Essentials need not coincide in point of time.— The common-law essentials requisite to give to the husband an estate by the curtesy need not coincide in point of time,i and it is therefore immaterial whether the issue is born before or after the seisin of the wife ; if it had lived, it would have inherited the estate, for its birth will entitle the husband to curtesy, even though it died before the wife acquired the estate. ^ Thus when, after issue is born, lands descend to the wife, be the issue dead or alive at the time of the descent, the husband shall be tenant by the curtesy. So if, after the death of the issue, the wife acquires land in fee, and dies without having had any other issue, her husband shall be tenant by curtesy ; for the having issue, and being seized during the coverture, is sufficient, though it be at different times.^ In those states where bastards are legit- imized by the subsequent marriage of their parents, where a child is born to a man and woman in an illicit con- nection, and they subsequently marry and have no other issue, the right of curtesy in all the land of which the wife may be seized during coverture will vest in the hus- band, because of the birth of such child.* It not being necessary that the birth of issue and seisin be coincident, therefore where there is a seisin during coverture, and the land is conveyed by the wife, without her husband join- ing in the deed, before any child is born of the marriage, and a child is born after the conveyance, the husband will be entitled to curtesy, in such lands, because a wife cannot, by her sole deed, deprive her husband of his right to curtesy.^ Where the land is acquired after the death of the issue, the husband will be entitled to curtesy the same as though it had been acquired before the birth of the issue. ^ Where adverse possession is taken of the wife's ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39b. » Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. ^ Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- (6 Allen) 166. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 21 « Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 235 ; Am. Dec. 66 ; Phillips v, Phillips, 3 Duv. (Ky.) 3 Bl. Com. 128 ; 549 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. Jackson exd. Swartwout v. John- 2 Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 23 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 31 Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35b. Am. Dec. 66 ; ■* Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965. Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 398. C24: DEATH OF WIFE. [Book TII. estate during coverture, and she then has issue and dies, her surviving husband will be entitled to curtesy in the land.i Sec. '159. Same— 4. Death of wife.— The last requisite to confer curtesy upon the husband is the death of the wife. Until this event the estate is simply initiate,^ is a contin- gent and not a vested estate.^ The other requisite con- ditions being present, upon the death of the wife the estate by curtesy is consummate.* The estate by curtesy, though inchoate,^ is not in esse until the death of the wife, is merely a contingent and not a vested estate^® even though while she lives he may be tenant of the free- hold in her right. ^ On the death of the wife the husband becomes tenant by the curtesy by operation of law,^ and without any assignment,^ and the land will be held by him subject to all incumbrances which would affect it in h6r possession, were she alive. ^^ Sec. 760. Same— Same— Civil death and bigamy of wife.— By the common law, civil death was death in law also,^^ but aside from statutory provisions to that effect ^^ there is no civil death known to the American law,^^ and the estate ' Jackson ex d. Swartwout t). John- ter, "Nature, Incidents, and son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 21 Duties." Am. Dec. 66 ; " Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) Guion V. Anderson, 8 Humph. 599, 606 ; (Tenn.) 307. ' Oldham v. Henderson, 5 Dana 2 Eice V. HofEman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ; (Ky.) 254. Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. (2 « Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83, Fost.) 491, 493 ; 86. Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) « Rice v. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ; 21, 24 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182. Wilson V. Arentz, 70 N. C. 670, '» Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 673. 21. See : Ante, § 714. " See : 1 Bl. Com. 132 ; 2 Id. 121 ; " Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 4 Id. 380 ; 599, 606. Bract., fol. 301b, 421b ; ' Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 83 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 130a, 132a- Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn. 133a ; 225, 230 ; 1 Steph. Com. 132. Witham V. Perkins, 2 Me. 400 ; " Estate of Nerac, 35 Cal. 392 ; s.c. Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. (N. 95 Am. Dea 111 ; Y.) 168 ; Planter v. Sherwood, 6 John. Ch. Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) (N. Y.) 118, 128. 21, 24 ; 13 It is said in the case of Baltimore Jones V. Davies, 7 Hurl. &N. 507, v. Chester, 53 Vt. 315 ; s.c. 38 ,„. 508. Am. Rep. 677, 679, that the ' Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350. dictum of Lord Coke (1 Co. See : Post, section II., this chap- Litt. (19th ed.) 130a), that " be- Chap. XVII. § 760.] NATURE, ETC., OF CURTESY. 625 of a person convicted and attainted of felony, and sen- tenced to imprisonment for life is not divested/ and even where civil death exists by virtue of local statute, such death does not give curtesy to the husband. ^ It is thought, however, that by provisions of statute the conviction of the wife of bigamy may be sufficient to invest the hus- band with an estate by curtesy.^ Section II. — Nature, Incidents, and Duties. Sec. 761. Nature of estate by the curtesy. Sec. 762. Same— -Tenure. Sec. 763. Same — Same — At common law. Sec. 764. Same — Same — Continuation of wife's estate. Sec. 765. Same — Has character of title by descent. Sec. 766. Same — When estate attaches. Sec. 767. Same — Same— Disclaimer. Sec. 768. Same — Same — Action by husband to recover. Sec. 769. Same — Same — Suspends descent. Sec. 770. Same — Same — Suspends statute of limitations. Sec. 771. Same — Proceeds of judicial sale — Curtesy in. Sec. 773. Same — Insurable interest. Sec. 773. Incidents of curtesy — Generally. Sec. 774. Same — 1. Right to sell or lease. Sec. 775. Same — 2. Subject to debts of the wife. Sec. 776. Same — 3. Subject to debts of tenant. Sec. 777. Same — Same — Wife's right as creditor against curtesy. Sec. 778. Same — Same — Curtesy initiate. Sec. 779. Same — Same — Same — Under statute subjecting "any estate held by debtor." sides men attainted in proETOMn- death seems to have been con- ire, every person that is at- fined to the cases of persons tainted of high treason, petit professed, or abjured, or ban- treason, or felony, is disabled ished the realm, and I do not to bring any action, for he is find that it was ever carried extra legem positus, and is ac- further by the common law." counted in law civiliter mor- This view is well sustained by tuus," led Chancellor Kent to authority. think, as he intimated in Troup See : Banyster v. Trussel, Cro. V. Sherwood, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Eliz. 516 ; Y.) 328, that every person at- Coppin v. Gunner, 3 Ld. Raym. tainted of felony was accounted 1573 ; in law civiliter mortuus ; but Ramsden v. MaoDonald, 1 Wils. in a later case, Platner v. Sher- 217 ; wood, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 118, Foster Crown Cases, 61, 62, 63. he said this dictum of Lord ' Platner v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. Ch. Coke "is not to be taken in the (N. Y.) 118. full latitude of expression," and ' Woolridge v. Lucas, 7 B. Mon. after reference to other expres- (Ky.) 49. sions of Lord Coke (1 Co. Litt. ^ See : Md. Rev. Code 1878, p. 807, (19th ed.) 133a, b, 133a ; 3 Inst. § 103. 215) he says : " The strict civil 40 626 TENURE OF CUETESY. [Book III. Sec. 780. Same — Same — Same — Under recent American statutes. Sec. 781. Same — 4. Emblements — Tenant by curtesy entitled to. Sec. 782, Same — 5. Improvements — No allowance to tenant for. Sec. 783. Same— 6. Waste by tenant by curtesy — Liability for. Sec. 784. Same — Same — Liability of assignee. Sec. 785. Same— 7. Partition. Sec. 786. Same — 8. Power to sell, assign, or lease. Sec. 787. Same — Same — Effect of subsequent divorce. Sec. 788. Same — 9. Suits with reference to. Sec. 789. Same — Same — Damages to reservation. Sec. 790. Duties of tenant by curtesy. Section 761. Ifature of estate by curtesy.— At common law the husband was entitled to curtesy in all the real estate of which the wife died seized, whether such estate was a separate estate or not.^ Such an estate is a freehold estate for the term of the husband's natural life, and not a mere charge or incumbrance upon the land.^ By the custom of Normandy an estate by the curtesy was deter- minable upon the second marriage of the tenant ; and this is still the rule in gavelkind lands. ^ Sec. 762. Same— Tenure.— With regard to the grounds on which the right to an estate by the curtesy rests there is a difference of opinion. Sir J. Jekeys maintained that the husband's tenancy by the curtesy has no moral foundation, and is therefore properly called a tenancy by the curtesy of England, that is, an estate by the favor of the law of England.* Craig says that curtesy was granted cut of respect to the former marriage, and to save the husband from falling into poverty ; and he deduces curtesy from one of the rescripts of the Emperor Constantine.^ Others still base the right to curtesy in the husband on his obligation to support the children which are the issue of the marriage ; but though the tenure by ' Eldridge v. Preble, 34 Me. 148, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a ; 151 ; 3 Bl. Com. 126 ; Dejarnette v. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.) Litt. , § 35. 49? ; See, also : N. Y. Eev. Stat. (8tTi Wmkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. ed.), pp. 2600-3606. 455. 8 See : Ante, § 711. ' Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 235; < 2 Pr. Wms. 703. Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. (3 « Craig, Jus. Feud., lib. 3; Post.) 491 ; Dieg. 22, § 40 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 38 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 183 ; Wright on Tenures, 194. Chap. XVn. § 765.] CONTINUATION OF WIFE'S ESTATE. G27 curtesy may have originated from the husband's obUga- tion to support his children, yet the extent of his interest is not measured by this reason for its introduction. He is entitled to hold for life, whether his children need his support or not, and whether they live an hour only, or to old age.^ Sec. 763. Same— Same — At com.mon law. — At common law there was a difference between the tenure of an estate by curtesy and the tenure of an estate in dower. The tenant by the curtesy held immediately of the superior lord, while tenant in dower held immediately of the heir, and was attendant on him for one-third of the services.^ In this country curtesy is regarded as a con- tinuation of the wife's estate.^ Sec. 764. Same— Same— Conttauation of wife's estate.— The estate by the curtesy being regarded as a continuation of the wife's inheritance, the husband is therefore entitled to all those rights and privileges which his wife would have had if she were alive, and which were annexed to her estate ; * and he will take it subject to the same incum- brances under which she held it.^ The husband's estate by curtesy being a continuance of the wife's estate, a tenant by the curtesy does not hold adversely to the wife or her heirs. Thus where, on a separation of a husband and wife, an agreement is made setting apart to her a third of land descended to her from her father, free from all claims of the husband, but there is no stipulation as to the residue, on which the husband continues to live, the latter is tenant by the curtesy and does not hold ad- versely to the wife or her heirs.® ^ Sec. 705. Same— Has character of title by descent.— An estate by curtesy accrues, by the mere operation of law, upon the death of the wife, and for that reason partakes more of the character of an estate acquired by descent 'Heath V.White, 5 Conn. 235. ' ?f ^ ; -^°**'J '''^^- o« ,- oaa ' Watk. Desc. 104, 105. ' Dooley u Baynes 86 ^ a 644 : s.c. = See : Post, § 764. OS. E. Rep. 974 ; 14 Va. L. J. ■i Walker's Case, 3 Co. 22b. 156. 628 WHEN ATTACHES— DISCLAIMER. [Book HI. than by purchase.-' By marriage the husband derives an estate of freehold in the real estate of the wife ; he is jointly seized with his wife, and during the existence of the coverture he is not tenant by the curtesy, and cannot be, unless he survive her.^ Sec. T66. Same— When estate attaches.- An estate by curtesy vests in the husband immediately on the death of the wife ; ^ no entry or other act on the part of the hus- band is necessary to complete the estate, for on the death of the wife the law adjudges the freehold to be in the husband immediately, as tenant by the curtesy.* Thus where there was no one in actual possession of certain land, whose owner had died intestate, the land being wild, the husband of one of the heirs is to be regarded as in possession as tenant by the curtesy, though he states that he never owned the premises, and never went through the formal ceremony of putting his foot upon the land.^ But where a married woman dies before the expiration of a term of years for which she has leased her own estate, the lessee is entitled to remain undisturbed during the term, regardless of the husband's estate by curtesy, or any sub- sequent execution creditor's claim thereon.^ Sec. T67. Same— Same— Disclaimer.— We have already seen that an estate by curtesy partakes of the character of descent rather than purchase,^ and becomes consummate immediately upon the death of the wife, ^ and the estate having so vested, it cannot be divested by a disclaimer, though made under hand and seal, duly witnessed, acknowledged, and recorded ; the object and effect of a ' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ; one who continues to occupy Pemberton v. Hicks, 1 Binn his wife's lands after her death (Pa.) 1 ; without demanding or filing a 1 Inst. 18b. 106 ; petition for the assignment of 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.),373. note a . dower under the Illinois statute « Weisinger v. Murphy, 3 Head is liable to account to her heirs (Tenn.) 674. for the rents and profits. ' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83. » Pierce v. Wannett, 10 Ired. (N. C.) ^ Witham v. Perkins, 3 Me. 400 ; L. 446. Bro. Ab. Praecipe, 38. « Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 530 ; s.c. But in the case of Bedford v. Bed- 1 N. W. Eep. 571. ford, 36 N. E. Rep. 663, aff'g 32 ■> See : Ante, § 765. m. App. 455, it was held that ^ See : Ante, §§ 714, 716, 766. Chap. XVn. §§ 768-770.] SUSPENDS DESCENT. 6539 disclaimer being, not to transfer a title, but to prevent a transfer.^ Sec. 768. Same— Same— Action by husband to recover. — In all cases where it appears that a wife, at the time of her death, owned land in her own right, and no state of facts then existed that would bar the surviving husband's right to curtesy therein, and the land is in the pos- session of another, the surviving husband has a right of action to recover the possession thereof ; ^ and where a husband bringing ejectment for his curtesy dies, his administrator may be substituted, and recover mesne profits to the time of such death. ^ Sec. 769. Same— Same— Suspends descent.— At common law the right of possession of the wife's lands did not accrue to the wife or those claiming under her until the cessation of the curtesy ; * and in this country, during the existence of an estate by curtesy, lands do not descend to the heirs so as to give them a right of entry ; ^ conse- quently one claiming land as heir of his mother cannot recover, in ejectment, against one claiming the land under his father, who is tenant by curtesy.^ And where one holds land as tenant by curtesy, those deriving title from his deceased wife cannot sue during his life.^ But the wife's heirs, being remaindermen in fee of the equitable estate, can compel the life tenant by the curtesy, or his assignee, by contract or by operation of law, with notice, to convey to them the legal estate in remainder.^ Sec. 770. Same— Suspends statute of limitation.— The ex- istence of an estate by the curtesy not only suspends the ' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 8.3. ' Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- 2 Hall V. HaU, 32 Ohio St. 184. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 See : Post. § 788. Am. Dec. 433 ; Trespasses to try title. —In Alabama Bates v. Shraeder, 13 Johns. (N. a plaintiff claiming as tenant Y.) 260. by the curtesy may recover A strxnger in possession of land may possession of the premises in an not set up an estate in curtesy action of trespass to try title. to bar the claim of an heir. Eochan v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) Adair v. Lott, '• Hill (N. Y.) 182. 609. " Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.l 2 Hart V. McGraw, 11 Atl. Rep. 554. 617 ; s.c. 10 Cent. Rep. 312. ' Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 Mo. 96. < See : Dyer v. Wittle, 89 Mo. 81 ; * Taylor v. Smith, 04 Miss. 50. s.c. 58 Am. Rep. 85. 630 IN PEOCEEDS OF SALE. [Book III. descent of the land/ but during its continuance the statute of limitations will not run against the wife/ or her heirs; ^ and where a plaintiff has been under disabilities, and the estate by curtesy arose before the disability was removed, the existence of the estate by curtesy at the time of the removal of the disabilities will stop the running of the statute.* Sec. 171. Same— Proceeds of judicial sale— Curtesy in.— Where lands subject to curtesy are sold at judicial sale free and clear of the curtesy, the proceeds of the sale take the place of the land, and the interest thereon will belong to the husband for life ; ^ and if the wife's lands are sold after her death under a deed of trust, in which the husband joined, any surplus arising from such sale is regarded as real estate, in which the husband has curtesy. ° I See : Ante, § 769. ' Bar of husband's estate by adverse pos- session — Effect on wife's rights. — If the hiisband permit an ad- verse possession to bar his estate, yet the wife's rever- sion is not barred, and lier right of action only accrues upon the death of her husband. See : Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (3 Fost.) 491. 5 Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228 ; White V. Perkins, 3 Me. (2Greenl.) 400; Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 Mo. 96 : Meraraan's Heirs v. Caldwell's Heirs, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 33 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 537 ; Jackson ex d. Hardenburgh v. Schoonmaker,4 John. (N. Y. )390 ; Ege V. Medlar, 83 Pa. St. 86. In Worth Carolina the children ■ of one entitled to an estate as tenant by the curtesy are allowed, seven years from the death of their father before they are barred by the statute of limitations. Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones (N. C.) L. 297. * Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Deo. 433. ' Jacques v. Ennis, 35 N. J. Eq. (10 C. E. Gr.) 403 ; Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; s.c.7 Am. Dec. 504; EUs worth V. Cook, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 643. In Estate of Tilghman, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 44, by a private act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, A, who was tenant by the curtesy of certain town lots and lands, was authorized to sell the lots in fee, provided there should be reserved a perpetual ground rent of at least $3 per annum, issuing out of, and charged on, every lot sold, to be paid to the said A during his life, with re- mainder in fee to the heirs of his deceased wife. Under this power, A sold divers lots, on which he reserved ground rents in the manner prescribed by the act, and for which he also received gross sums of money, in addition. The court held that these sums were to be consid- ered as real estate, and, as such, went to the heirs of his deceased wife, and not to the adminis- ti'ator of a daughter who died in his lifetime. A sale nnder an order of the or- phans' court, without making the tenant by the curtesy a party to the proceedings, was held to be subject to the curtesy in Jacques v. Ennis, 35 N. J. Eq. (10 C. E. Gr.) 403. " Robinson v. Lakeman, 38 Abb. App. 185. Chap. XVII. § 772.] INSURABLE INTEREST. 031 Sec. 772. Same— insurable interest.— An insurable inter- est in property does not necessarily depend upon the ownership of the property, legal or equitable title not being necessary to give such an interest in the property ; it may be a special or limited interest, discon- nected with any title, lien, or possession.^ Any person who has a right which may be enforced against the property, and which is so connected with it that any in- ju.ry thereto necessarily results in a loss to him, has an .insurable interest.^ Thus a husband in possession and enjoyment with his wife of her real and personal prop- erty, with an inchoate right of curtesy, has an insurable SwAYNE said: "A right of property in a thing is not always indispensable to an insurable interest. Injury from its loss or benefit from its preservation to accrue to the assured may be sufficient ; and a contingent interest thus arising may be made the subject of a policy." '' Home Protection of North Ala- bama V. Caldwell, 85 Ala. 607 ; B.C. 5 So. Rep. 338 ; Wainer i\ Milford Mutual Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 335; s.c. 36 N. E. Rep. 877 ; 11 L. R. A. 598 ; Rohrbach i\ German Fire Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 47 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 451 ; Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Erb, 113 Pa. St. 149 ; s.c. 4 Atl. Rep. 8 ; 3 Cent. Rep. 783 ; Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wagner, (Pa.) 1 Cent. Rep. 333. Sole beneficial owcer is sufficient. Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. V. Erb, 113 Pa. St. 149 ; s.c. 4 Atl. Rep. 8 ; 3 Cent. Rep. 783. A mere qualified or eqnitaWe interest in property is insurable. Home Pi'otection of North Ala- bama i: Caldwell, 85 Ala. 607 ; s.c. 5 So. Rep. 338. A tsnant by curtesy has an insur- able interest in a house. Kyte V. Commercial U. Assur. Co., 144 Mass. 43; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. 518 ; 3 New Eng. Rep. 884. A direct pecuniary interest whicli will be damaged by the desti-uc- tion of a building is insurable. Muttial F. Ins. Co. v. Wagner, (Pa.) 1 Cent. Rep. 333. Lazarus v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 36Ma.ss. (19 Pick.) 81 ; German Insurance Co. v. Hyman, Neb. ; s.c. 53 N. W. Rep. 401 ; 31 Inst. L. J. 941 ; Rohrbach v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 63 N. y. 47 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 451 ; Porch V. Fi-ies, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 304 ; Sturm V. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co.,88N. Y. Sup. 381; Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Erb, 113 Pa. St. 149 ; s.c. 4 Atl.. Rep. 8 ; 3 Cent. Rep. 783 ; Humes v. Providence Washing- ton Ins. Co. , 33 S. C. 190; Hancock v. Fishing Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. C. C. 133 ; Hooper v. Robinson, 98 U. S. 538 ; bk. 35 L. ed. 319 ; Lucena v. Craufurd, 3 Bos. & P. 75 ; s.c. 3 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 369 ; 1 Taunt. 335 ; 6 Rev. Rep. 633 ; Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Ins. Co., L. R., 8 C. P. 596,633; s.c. 43 L. J. C. P. 305 ; 7 Moak's Eng. Rep. 105. Insurable Interest— Judge Story's defi- nition. — In Hancock v. Fishing Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. C. C. 133, Judge Story said : " An insur- able interest is sui geyieris, and peculiar in its texture and op- eration. It sometimes exists where there is not any present property, ov jus in re or jus ad rem. Inchoate rights founded on subsisting titles, unless pro- hibited by the policy of the law, are insurable." Same — Justice Swayne's definition. — In Hooper v. Robinson, 98 U. S. 538; bk. 15 L. ed. 319, Justice 632 INCIDENTS OF CURTESY. [Book III. interest therein ; ^ but it seems that he must specifically insure the right of using the property of his wife in order to entitle him to recover damages for loss of it.^ On the other hand, it has been held in Indiana,^ Maine,* and Michigan,^ that a husband has no insurable interest in the statutory property of his wife. Sec. 'TTS. Ineidentsof curtesy— Generally.— The interest of a tenant by curtesy is a vested legal estate, distinct from that of the wife, and is liable to all the incidents of. any other freehold or life estate.^ The different stages of the estate, however, are governed by different rules. We have already seen that curtesy is divided into two kinds or classes, which are properly but stages ; "* the one being known as curtesy initiate,^ and the other as curtesy consummate.^ The first stage in the estate, as already explained, commences either on the birth of issue, ^'^ or seisin" of the wife during coverture, which- ever takes place first. ^^ Although the husband holds ' Merrett v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 42 Iowa 11 ; American Central Ins. Co. v. Mo- Lanathan, 11 Kan. 533 ; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Drake, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 47 ; Mutual Ins. Co. v. Deale, 18 Md. 26 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673 ; Kyte V. Commercial Union As- surance Co., 144 Mass. 43 ; s.c. 10 N. E. Eep. 518 ; 3 New Eng. Rep. 884 ; Williams v. Roger Williams Ins. Co., 107 Mass. 377 ; s.c. 9 Am. Eep. 41 ; Trade Ins. Co. v. Barraoliff, 45 N. J. L. (16 Vr.) 543 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 792 ; Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 204 ; Harris v. Yorfe-ins. Co., 50 Pa. St. 841 ; Cohn V. Virginia Ins. Co., 3 Hughes, C. C. 272 ; (raulstine v. Royal Ins. Co., 1 Fost. & F. 276. Compare: Agricultural Ins. Co. r. Montague, 38 Mich. 548 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 336. ■ Ani where a husljand, who has in- sured for himself without men- tion of his wife's ownership, sues for damage by fire to liis wife's estate, claiming an in- surable interest, his declaration must set out his interest, and claim damage to that interest, or he cannot recover. Cohn V. Virginia Fire, etc., Ins. Co., 3 Hughes C. C. 273. 2 Traders' Ins. Co. v. Newman, 120 Ind. 554 ; s.c. 33 N. E. Rep. 428. This case, however, was decided on a point in pleading. ^ Clark V. Dwelling-House, 81 Me. 373 ; s.c. 17 Atl. Eep. 303. ' Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Montague, 38 Mich. 548 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 326. ' Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 lU. 219. ■> See : Ante, 8 714. ' Sec : Ante, s 715. » See : Ante, § 716. ■"> See : Ante, § 747. "See: Ante, §733, et seq. " Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ; Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (4 Fost.) 491, 493 ; Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 81,34; Wilson V. Arentz, 70 N. C. 670, 674. See : Ante, §§ 151, 153, 156. Chap. XVII. § 774.] RIGHT TO SELL OE LEASE. 633 curtesy initiate in his own right,-' yet he has no present tenancy by virtue of it,^ and it in no way changes the incidents of his tenancy in his wife's right during coverture.^ Curtesy initiate is not a vested riglit,* hut a prior estate of things/ and may be taken from the husband either by act of the Legislature or judgment of a court of law, or a decree in chancery.^ When tenancy by curtesy consummate vests, the husband becomes practically the owner for the time being, and may do with the estate as an owner in fee-simple could, except to transfer it in fee, or commit waste.''' The estate has all the rights and incidents of a conventional life estate.^ Thus the tenant by curtesy has a right to the possession of the premises,^ may prosecute, ^^ and defend suits in ejectment ; ^' may recover damages for injuries to his estate ; ^^ has a right to take reasonable estovers ; ^^ is entitled to work mines, quarries, and the like ; ^* has a right to sell ^^ or lease ^^ the premises, and is liable for waste. ^^ Sec. TTi. Same— l. Eight to sell or lease.— The interest of a tenant by the curtesy being a legal estate, with all the incidents of any other freehold or life estate, the tenant will have a right to sell or lease the premises, provided ' See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. « See : Star v. Pease, 8 Conn. 541, 228 235 ■ 546. Short'all v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219, ' See : Ante, 8 670. 227. * See : Ante, ^ 578, et seq. ' See : Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. ' See : Ante, g§ 578, 768. (N. Y.) 21, 24 ; "> Hall v. Hall, 32 Ohio St. 184. Jones V. Davies, 5 Hurl. & N. " Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Si 766 ; s.c. 7 Hurl. & N. 507, 508. Y.) 554. 3 See : Kibble v. Williams, 58 111. '^ See : Ante, § 580, et seq. 3() 31 • 1' Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226, Cole'-y. Van Eiper, 44 HI. 58, 66 ; 228. Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. See : Ante, §§ 582, 653-663. 455, 469. " See : J.iife.'g 583, et seq. * Heath'on v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93, 95 ; '=■ Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; Matter of Wmne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; 21 24 • Bottoms v. Corley, Heisk. Sharpless ■;;. West, 1 Grant (Pa.) (Tenn.) 1, 5. 250 260- " Shortall u Hinckley, 31 111. 219, Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 236. 599 606. Sfe : Post, § 774. Compare ■ Millinger v. Bosman, " Weise v. Welsh, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 45 Pa. St. 523, 529. Stew.) 431, 434. '- Ironsides v. Ironsides, 31 L. J. See : Ante, §§ 664, 704. Ad. li. 129, 131. 63i SUBJECT TO DEBTS OF WIFE. [Book III. he does not grant a greater interest than he possesses, or convey for a longer period than his own Hfe.-' Sec. YY5. Same— 2. Subject to the debts of the wife.— Formerly the wife was classed with infants and persons of unsound mind in regard to her capacity to enter into contracts or incur debts, ^ not that she was less capable of contracting by reason of her marriage, but because by the ancient common law the wife was little better than a slave ; the husband acquired her personal prop- erty, the rents and profits of her estate, the custody of her person, and the right to her services. She possessed nothing and could possess nothing independently of her husband. The law therefore deprived her of the capac- ity of contracting, because she had nothing in relation to which she could contract ; consequently she could have no debts that were a lien upon, her estate.^ The status of married women has been changed by the statutes in this country. On the death of the wife the estate by curtesy becomes consummate,* and being con- sidered simply as a continuance of the wife's inherit- ance,^ it passes to the husband and is held by him subject to all the debts and incumbrances under which the wife held it. 8 Sec. Y76. Same— Same— 3. Subject to debts of tenant.— The estate by curtesy is subject to the debts of the husband or tenant, and is bound by a judgment against him, and may be taken and sold under a levy of execution on such judgment.' Whether the estate be 1 Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 III. 319, 226. See : Ante, § 590, et seq. ^ Forbes ■;;. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.o. 1 N. W. Eep. 571. 8 2 Bl. Com. 325. See : Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571. * See : Ante, S, 716. ^ See : Ante, § 705, et seq., § 764. ^ See : Phillips v. Phillips, 2 Dev. (Ky.) D49 ; Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ; Forbes v, Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571. ' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ; Gay V. Gay, 123 111. 567 ; s.o. 18 N. E. Eep. 840 ; 11 West. Rep. 608 ; Lang V. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550 ; Jacobs V. Rice, 33 111. 369 ; Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 319 ; Eldredge v. Preble, 34 Me. 151 ; Gardner v. Hooper, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 398 ; Mechanics' Bank v. Williams, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 438 ; Litchfield v. Cudworth, 32 Mass. (15 Pick.) 23 : Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ; Taylor ■;;. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ; Day V. Cochran, 26 Miss. 361 ; Chap. XVII. § 776.] SUBJECT TO DEBTS OF TENANT. 635 initiate ^ or consummate.^ The levy may be made on the land directly ; 3 and a court of equity will not interfere in favor of the wife and children to prevent such a levy upon the curtesy initiate by creditors,* unless the husband has forfeited his right thereto by such a breach of the marital contract as entitles the wife to a decree of separation. 5 The husband cannot defeat the right of a Forbes i: Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ; Van Duzer i\ Van Duzer, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 257 ; Canby v. Porter, 13 Ohio 79 ; Lancaster Bank v. StaufiEer, 10 Pa. St. 398 ; Burd V. Dansdale, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 80; Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 336 ; Dejamette v. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.) 499. la Pennsylvania, the husband's es- tate by curtesy cannot be levied on under the statute. Brightley Pru. Dig., p. 1007 ; Curry v. Bott, 53 Pa. St. 400. See : Post, § 780. In Blissonrl, there is a question hov5^ far the husband's estate by curtesy is liable for his debts. Harvey v. Wickham, 23 IIo. 112, 117; ChurchUl v. Hudson, 34 Fed. Rep. 14. See : Post, % 780. In Uassachnsetts, it is said that Btatutes permitting the wife to cut off the husband's estate by curtesy with his consent are inconsistent with a riglit in creditors to levy thereon, and for that reason prevent a sale of the estate on execution. See : Staples v. Brown, 95 Mass. (13 Allen) 64 ; Silsby V. Bullock, 92 Mass. (10 AUen) 94. 1 See : Plumb v. Sawyer, 21 Conn. 351; Lang V. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550 ; ShortaU v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219, 337 * Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427, 443 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 708 ; Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 : Day V. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261, 275 ; Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 21 25 ■ . Canby v. Porter, 12 Ohio 79, 80 ; Burd V. Dansdale, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 80; Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326. ' See : Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520; s.o. 1 N. W. Rep. 571. " Roberts v. Wliiting, 16 Mass. 186, 190. . See : Mechanics' Bank v. Wil- liams, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 438, 441. •■ Lang V. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550 ; Wiokes V. Clarke, 8 Paige Cli. (N. Y.)161, 172; Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 257 ; Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 514. ' Renwick v. Renwick, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 172 ; Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. Deo. 357 ; Hanke v. Finke, 9 Watts (Pa.) 336; Gibson v. Gibson, 46 Wis. 458; s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 147 : Galligo V. ChevalHe, 2 Bro. C. C. 285. Breach of marital contract by hus- band — Effect on curtesy. — Under such circumstances it is but just and equitable to the wife that she should be permitted to retain for her own use, and for the education and support of the children, if any, all the real and personal estate which belongs to her at the time of the mar- riage, or which has come to her since by gift, devise, or descent from any of her relatives, and which the husband had not received and reduced to his actual possession previous to the commission of the offense. Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 257. See : Renwick v. Renwick, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 455; 636 WIFE AS CREDITOR. [Book III. creditor to proceed against the estate by any disclaimer of his right to the curtesy.^ Sec. ■777. Same— Same— Wife's right as creditor against curtesy.— The estate by the curtesy will pass to the husband subject to the right of the wife as a creditor.^ Thus in a case where a mortgage was made by the wife, with her husband, of her separate estate, and the husband used the money for his own purposes exclusively, without accounting to her, and subsequently by a deed of assign- ment, in which she joined, transferred all his estate for the benefit of creditors. The wife, after having devised her estate to her son, died, and her land was sold under the mortgage, leaving a balance after its payment. The court held that if the husband had any interest, as tenant by the curtesy, in the balance, the amount taken by him of the wife's money having been greater than such interest, her devisee was entitled to receive it, in pref- erence to the husband's assignees. The fund having come from her separate estate, it would have been hers if living ; her right did not depend upon subrogation, but was a legal right, to be enforced, unless the claim- ant under the husband could show a superior title, both in law and equity.^ Sec. 778. Same — Same — Curtesy initiate.— At common law the interest of a husband as tenant by the curtesy Gibson v. Gibson, 46 Wis. 458 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 4 Barb. (N. s.o. 1 N. W. Rep. 147 ; Y.) 295, 297. Gallego V. ChevalUe, 2 Bro. C. C. ' Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ; 285. Litchfield v. Cudworth, 32 Mass. See : Kashaw v. Kashaw, 3 Cal. (15 Pick.) 23 ; 313 ; Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ; Foster v. HaU, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) Day v. Cochran, 26 Miss. 261, 275 ; 546 ; Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige McCranklin v. McCranklin, 2 B. Ch. 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. Deo. 357 ; Mon. (Ky.) 370. Canby v. Porter, 13 Ohio 79 ; Same— The husband forfeits all equit- Lancaster Bank v. Stauffer, 10 able rights to tlie wife's property Pa. St. 398 : by his violation of the marriage Burd v. Dansdale, 2 Binn. (Pa.) contract, and for that reason 80 ; win be restored by courts of Mattocks v. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326. equity. See : Ante, § 767. Renwick v. Renwick, 10 Paige = Piatt's Estate, 2 W. N. C. 468 ; s.c. Ch. (N. Y.) 420 ; . sub nom. Shippen's Appeal, 80 Fry V. Fry, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) Pa. St. 391. 461 ; 3 Shippen's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 391. Chap. XVII. § 779.] CURTESY INITIATE. 63T became initiate by tbe birth of a child/ or the acquisi- tion of possession by the wife during coverture, ^ and was subject to the husband's debts as well as after it became consummate, 3 and could be sold under a levy of execu- tion,* and the husband could not, by refusal to take the property, defeat the rights of his creditors therein." The estate by the curtesy may be set off by appraisement, or the rents and profits may be levied on, at the election of creditors.^ Sec. '7T9. Same— Same— Same— ITiider statute subjecting " any estate held by debtor."— Under a statute making liable to execution "any estate held by the debtor m his own right, or for his own life, or the life of another, paying no rent therefor," the Supreme Court of Vermont '^ held an estate by the curtesy initiate liable to execution. The court say : " We see no difficulty in considering this an estate which the debtor held in his own right. The title was indeed derived through the right of his wife ; but, by virtue of the marriage, he, as husband, acquired certain rights, among which the use of the freehold estate on inheritance of the wife during the coverture is one. After issue born alive, this estate is enlarged, and extends not only during the coverture, > See : Ante, §§ 747, 773. Burd v. Dansdale, 2 Binn. 80 ; ■ See : Aiite, §§ 723, 773. Mattocks v. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326. ' Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ; A judgment against a tenant by Burd V. Dansdale, 2 Burn. (Pa.) the curtesy initiate, after issue 80 ; born, binds his estate in his Mattocks V. Steams, 9 Vt. 326. wife's lands which have been ' Plumb V. Sawyer, 21 Conn. 351 ; ordered to be appraised in pro- Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ; ceedings in partition, but which Litchfield v. Cudworth, 33 Mass. have not been accepted or sold (15 Pick.) 23 ; at the date of the recovery of Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ; the judgment ; and this lien Day V. Cochrane, 24 Miss. 261 ; continues to bind securities Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 112, given for the wife's share of the 117 ; valuation. Bunn V. Daly, 24 Hun (N. Y.) Lancaster County Bank v. Stauf- 536 ; fer, 10 Pa. St. 398. Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige * Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83. Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. See : Ante, § 767. Dec. 257 ; * Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186. Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) But the widow of the execution 508 ; creditor is not entitled to dower Canby v. Porter, 12 Ohio 79 ; in such estate. Lancaster Bank v. Stauffer, 10 Gillis v. Brown, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) Pa. St. 398 ; 388. ' Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326. 638 CURTESY INITIATE UNDER STATUTES. [Book III. but till the death of the husband, except in one event, which will be named hereafter. This, in England, after the death of the wife, was denominated an estate by the curtesy, but is strictly an estate, which the husband holds in his own right, whether before or after the death of the wife. He may bring trespass or ejectment in his own name for any injury to the usufruct during the continuance of the estate. The next inquiry is whether this is an estate for the life of the debtor. It is undoubtedly true that this estate might be terminated by a divorce a vinculo,^ before the death of either husband or wife. But this is a contingency of so remote expectation, as not to enter into the ordinary calculations of the duration of the relation of married life. It is one of those extreme cases which, like earth- quakes and tempests in the natural world, or like public executions in the history of individual existence, do, indeed, sometimes occur, but which no one feels bound to expect or provide against. " Sec. Y80. Same— Same— Under recent American statutes.— The passage in many of the states of what are known as " Married Women's Acts " has abolished curtesy initiate, and in those states there cannot of course be a levy upon the husband's estate in the wife's lands in her lifetime ; for his estate does not arise until after his wife's death, and until that event occurs, his interest is a mere ex- pectancy of an estate in such lands as remain upon the wife's death, and this is too uncertain and indefinite a property to be subject to levy and sale on execution!^ In those states where married women's acts have been passed and where tenancy by curtesy initiate is still recognized, the statutes have the effect to restrain a levy upon, or the sale of, the curtesy initiate by virtue of a writ of execution, postponing all actions by the husband's creditors until the estate becomes consummate by the wife's death.3 Under these statutes the courts hold that ' See : Post, §§ 814, 817. Silsby v. BuUock, 93 Mass. (10 " See : Jones v. Carter, 73 N. C. 148 ; Allen) 94 • Williams V. Baker, 71 Pa. St. 476. Clarke's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 376 ; Staples y. Brown, 95 Mass. (13 Woodward v. "Wilson, 68 Pa. St. AUen) 64 ; 208 : Chap. XVII. §§ 781-783.] EMBLEMENTS— IMPROVEMENTS. 639 as the wife's estate cannot be taken in execution for the husband's debts, on account of his curtesy, he cannot alienate it during coverture.-' Sec. 781. Same — 4. Emblements — Tenant by curtesy en- titled to.— We have already seen^ that among the inci- dents which attach to an ordinary life estate is a right to the possession and usufruct, or annual produce, of the land^ during the continuance of the life estate. The rights of a tenant by the curtesy in this regard are not different from those of any other life tenant.* Sec. 782. Same — 5. Improvements — No allowance to ten- ant for.-We have heretofore seen that an ordinary life tenant is not permitted to burden the reversioner or remainderman with the expense of permanent improve- ments.* In respect to such improvements the life tenant is under the same inhibitions as ordinary life tenants, and has no right to make improvements at the expense of the heirs or remaindermen ; ^ and where such tenant makes permanent improvements upon the land, neither he nor any one who claims through him is entitled to an allowance for the increased value of the premises by vir- tue of the buildings and improvements made by such tenant by the curtesy.'' There is an exception to this rule, however, in those cases where there is a partition of the estate.^ Sec. 783. Same— 6. Waste by tenant by curtesy- Lia- bility for.— That an ordinary tenant for life is liable for waste has already been pointed out." A tenant by the curtesy being a tenant for life merely, since the statute of Gloucester, 1° is liable for waste ;" and where he has as- Curry v. Bott, 53 Pa. St. 400 ; ^ See : Ante, § 610. Churchill v. Hudson, 34 Fed. Rep. « Bedford v. Bedford, 26 N. E. Rep. 14 . 662, aff'g s.c. 32 111. App. 455. Mass! Gen. St., c. 108, § 1 ; ' Runey v. Edmands, 15' Mass. 391. Rev. St. Mo., § 3295 ; « See : Post, S 785. Act. Pa. Apr. 23, 1850, § 3 ; P. L. » See : Ante, bk. III., c. XVI., sec- 553 ^ tionVII., "Waste." ' WiUiaims v. Baker, 71 Pa. St. 476. '» 6 Edw. I., c. 5. ^ See : Ante, 8 578. " Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 336 ; 3 See : Ante', 6k. III., o. XVI., sec- Bates v. Shraeder, 13 John. (N. Y.) tion v., "Emblements." 260. * Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 236. 640 "WASTE— LIABILITY OF ASSIGNEE. [BOOK III. signed his interest in the estate by curtesy, and waste is committed by his assignee, the original tenant by curtesy is still liable to an action by the heir for such waste. ^ We shall hereafter see that a tenant by curtesy may forfeit his estate by being guilty of waste. ^ At common law it was doubtful whether a tenant by the curtesy was punishable for waste. To remedy this defect the statute of Gloucester ^ was passed. This statute enacted that a writ of waste might be brought against a tenant by the curtesy, and that such tenant should incur the same penalties for committing waste as any other tenant for hfe.* Sec. Y84. Same — Same— Liability of assignee.— At com- mon law the assignee of a tenant by curtesy could not be sued in waste ; the action had to be brought against the tenant himself by the heirs, whereby he recovered the loss against the assignee, for the privity was between the heir and the tenant by the curtesy ; ^ hence, in the absence of statutory regulation, where a tenant by the curtesy grants over his estate the privity of action re- mains between the heir and such tenant, and he shall have an action of waste against such tenant for waste committed after the assignment ; but if the heir grant over the reversion, then the privity of action is destroyed and the grantee cannot have any action of waste except against the tenant ; for between them there is privity in estate, and between them and the tenant by the curtesy there is no privity at all ; so that in law if the tenant is suable in waste there must be a privity of estate.^ Sec. T85. Same— 7. Partition.— Tenants for life in pos- session are entitled to have a partition of the estate as between themselves and all persons entitled to the rever- sion and the remainder.'' A tenant by the curtesy, being a tenant for life in the lands of his -deceased wife, is, ' Bates V. Shraeder, 13 John. (N. Y.) See : 3 Bao. Abr. 230 ; , „ 260. 2 Inst. 301. ^ bee: Post, section V., this chapter. « See : Bates v. Shraeder, 13 John. I T ^^"Z; ^■' ^- ^- (^- Y.) 360, 363. 5 w ,-, ^*,^' 5"^' ^^^- ' See : Jenkins v. Fahey, 73 N. Y. ' Walker's Case, 3 Co. 33. 355 Chap. XVII. § 786.1 PARTITION— POWER TO SELL. G-11 when such lands are held in co-tenancy, entitled to have a partition thereof ; ^ and even a tenant by the curtesy initiate has a sufficient estate in the lands upon which to base a partition suit.^ And it has been held that even the grantee of a tenant by the curtesy initiate has a sufficient estate in lands upon which to base a partition suit.* It is said by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in the case of Russell r. Eussell,* that whereupon the death of some of the children of a tenant by the curtesy, their interest in their mother's estate vests absolutely in the husband, and there is a partition made between him and the other children, it is proper to deduct any enhanced value to the entire estate arising from improvements made by the husband. Sec. T86. Same— 8. Power to sell, assign, or lease.— A ten- ant by curtesy, like any other tenant for life,^ luay sell, assign, or lease his interest as such tenant,^ whether he be tenant by curtesy, consummate or initiate, 'or has simply an inchoate interest which attaches on the death of the wife.^ Where the husband as such tenant conveys by a deed of bargain and sale, no greater interest passes than 1 Tilton V. Vail, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 638; 668 ; Rikerv. Darke,4Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) Otley v. MoAlpine's Heirs, 2 fifiS ■ Gratt. (Va.) 343. Seai-s 'v. Hyer, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) » Riker v. Darke, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 483, 486 ; 668 ; Otley V. McAlpine"s Heii-s, 3 Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) Gratt. (Va.) 340; 515. Hutchinson's Case, 4 Dane's Abr. See : 2 Van Santv. PI. 6. C62 ; ■* 13 S. W. Rep. 709 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 175a. Rep. 547. See : Weise v. Welsh, 33 N. J. ' See : Ante, § 590, et seq. Eq. (3 Stew.) 431 ; * Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; Darlbiffton's Appropriation, 13 s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Pa. St. 430 ; Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 319 ; Walker v. Dilworth, 3 U. S. (3 Meraman v. Caldwell, 8 B. Mon. Dall.) 257 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 372. (Ky.) 32 ; s.c. 46 Am Dec. 537; In massachnsetts, a tenant by the Central v. Copeland, 18 Md. 30o, curtesy is entitled to, and liable 330 ; „^ ^-r -,-,,,. -^ ^ , to, the process of petition for Flagg v. Bean, 25 N. H. (5 Fost.) Hutoiiii^sOTi's Case and Brad- Klotenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio bury's Case, 4 Dane's Abr. 662. St. 584 ; In Pennsylvania, it is questionable Briggs v. Titus, 13 R. I. 136 ; whether he can maintain a writ Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold. of partition (Tenn.) 633. Walker «. Diilworth, 3 U. S. (3 'Briggs r Titus 13 R. I. 136 Dall ■)357 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 373. « See : Hitz v. Metropolitan Bank, « Riker ^. Darke, 4Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) lU U. S. 733; bk. 38 L. ed. 577. 41 042 SUBSEQUENT DIVORCE. [Book III. the estate which he holds, that is, his life interest therein ; ^ and if in such a conveyance the wife joins only to release her right of dower, nothing passes from her to the gran- tee.^ If the husband conveys his curtesy and afterwards joins with his wife in the conveyance of the entire estate, such joint conveyance will carry the wife's remainder only, and not affect the former conveyance.^ A convey- ance by the husband of his estate by the curtesy in fraud of creditors will be void, the same as a similar convey- ance by a tenant in fee ; * and a voluntary settlement by the husband of such an estate upon his wife and children will be void as to creditors injuriously affected ; ^ but where the husband is indebted to the wife, he may con- vey his inchoate interest as tenant by the curtesy in her lands to a trustee for the benefit of such wife and her children, and his indebtedness to her will constitute a valuable consideration for the conveyance, although he is indebted at the same time to others.*^ Sec. 787. Same— Same— Effect of subsequent divorce.- Where a husband conveys his estate by the curtesy initiate in his wife's lands, for a good and valuable con- sideration, and subsequently is divorced from her for causes arising after the sale was made, and which did not affect the validity of the original marriage contract, such divorce will not affect the vendee's interest in the estate.'' ' Flagg V. Bean, 25 N. H. (5 Fost.) In case of such conveyance the 49 ; statute of limitations does not Meraman v. Caldwell, 8 B. Mon. commence to run against the (Ky.) 32 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 537. heirs of the wife until the « Flagg V. Bean,25 N.H. (5 Fost.) 49. death of the husband. Thus it is said in the case of Meraman v. Caldwell, 8 B. Mon. Klotenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 (Ky.) 32 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 537. Ohio St. 584, that, where the « Shortall v. Hinckley, 81 111. 219. husband becomes seized of an * Stehman v. Huber, 21 Pa. St. 260. estate by the curtesy, and ' Wiokes v. Clarke, 8 Paige Ch. during the life of his wife as- (N. Y.) 161 -. sumes to convey the fee of the Van Duzerij. Van Duzer, 6 Paige land, and put his grantee in Ch. (N. Y.) 366; s.c. 31 Am. possession, the conveyance of Dec. 257. the husband is a valid transfer « Ilitz v. Metropolitan Bank, 111 to the extent of his estate, and U. S. 722; bk. 28 L. ed. 577. if he survives her, the .statute of 'Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold. limitations does not commence (Tenn.) 632. to run against her heirs until As to effect on husband's breach the termination of his life es- of marital contract on his right tate. of curtesy, see : Ante, § 776. Chap. XVII. §§ 788-7900 DAMAGES TO REVERSION. 043 Sec. 788. Same— 9. Suits with reference to.— An estate by curtesy having the incidents of a conventional life estate/ a tenant by curtesy may maintain and def^rid actions relating thereto ; ^ thus he may recover the sanje in an action of ejectment,^ and he may defend suits brought by the heirs of his wife to eject him therefrom.* In all actions or suits relating to or affecting the estate by curtesy, the wife is not a necessary party and need not be joined.^ Sec. 789. Same— Same— Damages to reversion.— The right of a tenant by the curtesy to maintain and defend actions in regard to the estate is limited to his individual interest therein ; ^ consequently a tenant by curtesy of a reversion, expectant upon the determination of an estate in dower, cannot maintain trespass de bonis for trees or other things severed and removed by the doweress ; the property in the trees severed and removed belongs to the owner of the inheritance, by whom the action for damages must be brought.'' Sec. 790. Duties of tenant by curtesy.- After what has already been said in this chapter regarding the nature and character of an estate by the curtesy, it is scarcely neces- ' Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111.219, Muldowney r. Moms & E. R. Co. , 227 • 43 Hun (N. Y.) 444 ; Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 850, 354; HaU v. Hall, 32 Ohio St. 184. Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 ]Mo. 96, 105. In Alabamsr— Trespass to try title— See : Ante, % 578, et seq. A plaintiff, claiming as tenant ' See : Ante, § 768. by the curtesy, may recover In the case of Muldowney v. possession of the premises, in Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 43 Alabama, in the common form Hun (N. Y.) 444, a railroad of an action of trespass to try company fox several years oc- title. cupied land in which A had an Rochon v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) outstanding estate of curtesy. 609. After A and the railroad com- ■* Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.) pany first learned of the exist- 554. ence of A's estate, A brought '^ Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219, an action to compel payment 337. to him of his just proportion of « The writ of right at common law, the rents and profits. The or as recognized by statute in court held, that he was entitled Alabama, does not he m favor to the relief sought. of a tenant by the curtesy. 3 Lecatt V Merchants' Insurance Lecatt v. Merchants' Insurance Co., 16 Ala. 177 ; c.c. 50 Am. Co., 16 Ala. 177; s.c. 50 Am. Dec 169 • Dec. 169. Rochon V. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) ■" Mathews v. Bennett, 20 N. H. 31. 609; 64-i DtJTIES— BARRING CURTESY. [Book III. sary to add that tenants by curtesy hold their estates subject to the duties, limitations, and obligations which attach to those of ordinary tenants for life, which have already been fully discussed.^ Thus, at common law, the tenant by the curtesy shall be attendant on the lord paramount for the services due in respect of the lands that he holds by his title ; ^ and at the present day a man who is tenant by the curtesy of an estate charged with the payment of a sum of money is bound to keep down the interest ; and on his failure to do so, the person entitled to the inheritance can compel him to keep down the interest, the same as he could any other tenant for life.3 Section III. — Barking Cuktesy. Sec. 791. Barring curtesy — By agreement of parties. Sec. 793. Same — By attainder of wife. Sec. 793. Same — By divesture of wife on breach of covenant. Sec. 794. Same — By judicial proceedings under statute. Sec. 795. Same — By consent of husband to wife's will. Sec. 796. Same — By statute of limitations. Sec. 797. Same — By statutory enactment. Sec. 798. Same — By husband's conveyance. Sec. 799. Same — Same — In lands purchased with proceeds. Sec. 800. Same — By fine and recovery. Sec. 801. Same — By conveyance by wife during coverture. Sec. 802. Same — By settlement in trust. Sec. 803. Same — By instrument creating equitable estate. Sec. 804. Same — Same — Provisions excluding curtesy. Sec. 805. Same — By separate use for- wife. Sec. 806. Same — Not by deed or will of grantor. Sec. 807. Same— Not by will of wife. Sec. 808. Same— Not by decree enjoining husband. Sec. 809. Same — Not by attainder of wife after issue. Sec. 810. Same — Not by ante-nuptial deed. Sec. 811. Same — Not by ante-nuptial gift. Sec. 812. Same— Not by abandonment of possession to co-tenant in common. Sec. 813. Forfeiture— By alienage. Sec. 814. Same— By decree of divorce. Sec. 815. Same— Same— 1. Decree of nullity. Sec. 816. Same — Same — 3. Decree nisi. Sec. 817. Same — Same — 3. Decree a vinculo. 'See: Ante, bk. III., o. XVI., « Paine's Case, 8 Rep. 86a ; section II. , " Duties Incident to 3 Inst. 302. Life Estates." » 1 Atk. 606. Chap. XVII. § 791.] BARRING— BY AGREEMENT. 645 Sec. 818. Same— Same— Same— At suit of wife. Sec. 819. Same — Same— Same — At suit of husband. Sec. 820. Same— Same— Same— Rights of third parties. Sec. 821. Same— Same — 4. Decree a meiisa. Sec. 822. Same— By adultery. Sec. 823. Same — By abandonment of wife. Sec. 824. Same— By failure to provide. Sec. 825. Same— By bigamy. Sec. 826. Same — By wrongful alienation. Sec. 827. Same— By attainder of husband of treason or felony. Section T91. Barring curtesy— By agreement of parties.- The right of the husband to an estate by the curtesy in his wife's estates of inheritance may be barred in several ways, and among others by a voluntary agreement of both parties/ enforcible in equity,^ made either before or See : Charles v. Charles, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 486 ; s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 155 ; Rochon V. Lecatte, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 429; Mason v. Deese, 30 Ga. 308. See : Parsons v. Ely, 45 III. 233 ; Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29 ; Townsend ■;;. Mathews, 10 Md. 251; "Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 291 ; Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ; Lawrence v. Bartlett, 84 Mass. (2 Allen) 36 ; Williams v. Claiborne, 15 Miss. (7 Smed. & M.) 488 ; GUdden v. Blodgett, 38 N. H. 74; DeBarantev. Gott, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 349; Matter of Leefe, 4 Ed. Ch. (N. Y.) 395* Hook's V. Lee, 7 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 83; McBride v. WiUiams, 4 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 268; Tillinghast v. Coggshall, 7 R. I. 383; Baskins v. Giles, 1 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 815; Eidson v. Fontain, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 286; Hume V. Hor, 5 Gratt. (Va.) 874; Robinson v. Brock, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 213; Pickett V. Chilton, 5 Munf. (Va.) 467. The provision of a marriage settle- ment, that the wife's property "never be subject to the con- trol, contracts, or liabiUties of the husband," excludes the husband as well after the death of the wife as during her life. Mason v. Deese, 80 Ga. 308; Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 291. ' See: Wormley v. Wormley, 98 111. 544, 553 ; Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181, 192; s.c. 9 Am. Rep. 679; McCampbeU v. McCampbeU, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 661, 664; Moore v. Page, 111 U. S. ; bk. 28 L. ed. ; Murray v. Glasse, 23 L. J. Ch. 126,127. Constrning marriage settlements. — In construing and enforcing marriage settlements, the court win interpret them liberally, free from restraint of technical rules, so aa to carry out the presumed intention of the par- ties. See: May v. May, 7 Ela. 207; Strafcton c.Rogers,ll La.Ann.380; Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29; Williams v. Claiborne, 1 Smed. & M. Ch. (Miss.) 355; Dominick v. Michael, 4 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 374; Hooks V. Lee, 8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 157; Gause v. Hale, 2 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 241; Dupree v. McDonald, 4 Desau. (S. C.) L. 209; Smith V. Maxwell, 1 Hill Ch. (S. C.) Eq. 101; Gaillard v. Parcher, 1 McM. (S. C.) Ch. 358; Fabb V. Archer, 8 Hen. & M. (Va.) 399. 640 AGREEMENT OF PARTIES. [Book III. after marriage. At common law all contracts between a husband and wife after marriage are void for want of proper parties,^ and the inability of the wife to contract,^ Same — Made in foreign stat3. — A marriage settlement made in another state by parties residing there at the time will be construed by the laws of the state where made. Laifitte v. Lawton, 25 Ga. 305; Sherrod v. Calleghan, 9 La. Ann. 510; CarroU v. Renich, 15 Miss. (7 Smed. & M.) 798 ; Deoouch V. Savitier, 3 Johns. Oh. (N. Y.) 190; Soheferling v. Huffman, 4 Ohio St. 341. A proper consideration for such voluntary agreement must be shown as a foundation to suis- port it. See : Post, p. 648, footnote 4. Same — Massachusetts doctrine. — Thus it is said by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in tho case of "Whitney v. Closson, 138 Mass. 49 ; s.c. 19 Cent. L. J. 449, that although the laws of a state confer upon maiTied women the free- dom of contract possessed by femes sole, an agreement be- tween husband and wife upon valuable consideration, by which each agrees to make no claim upon the estate of the other in case of death, is not binding. The wife's identity heing merged in the personality of her husband, they together constituted but one person. WeUs v.Caywood,3 Colo.487,491; Hoker v. Boggs, 63 lU. 161 ; Barnett v. Harshbarger, 105 Ind. 410; s.c. 5 N. E. Rep. 718; Haas V. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 607; Long V. Kinney, 49 Ind. 233, 238; O'FarraUv. Simplot, 4 Iowa 381, 389; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, 14 ; Potter V. Wakefield, 146 Mass. 25, 27 ; "Woodward v. Spurr, 141 Mass. 383, 384 ; Kneil v. Egleston, 140 Mass. 302; s.c. 4. N. E. Rep. 573 ; "Whitney v. Closson, 138 Mass.49; Fowle V. Torrey, 135 Mass. 87 ; Bassett ■!;. Bassett, 113 Mass. 99 ; Ingham v. "White, 86 Mass. (4 Allen) 412 ; Lord V. Parker, 85 Mass. (3 Allen) 137; Burdenot). Amperse, 14 Mich. 91, 93; Frissell v. Rozier, 19 Mo. 448, 449 ; "Winebrinner v. "Weisiger, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 32, 34 ; Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 260, 263 ; Patterson v. Patterson, 45 N. H. 164; People V. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110, 118; s.c. 16 N. E. Rep. 529 ; Bartles v. Nunan, 93 N. Y. 152, 160 ; Meeker v. "Wright, 76 N. Y. 363, 270 ; Winans v. Peebles, 33 N. Y. 433 ; White t. Wager, 35 N. Y. 338 ; Chambovet v. Cagney, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 474 ; Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Bab- cock, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 331 ; Kelso V. Tabor, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 125; Savage v. O'Neil, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 374; Simmons v. McElwain, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 419, 430 ; Voorhees v. Presbyterian Church of Amsterdam, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 103; Dempsey v. Tylee, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 73; Johnson «. Rogers, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 367; Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 57; Barron v. Barron, 24 Vt. 375,398; Firebrass v. Pennant, 2 "Wils. 234. The intention of the Legislature to change the rule of the com- mon law in the passage of statutes aflfeoting the status of married women will not be presumed from doubtful pro- visions ; the presumption is that no such change was in- tended, unless the statute is ex- plicit and clear in the direction. People V. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110. 5 Gebb V. Rose, 40 Md. 387, 393 ; Burton v. Marshall, 4 Gill (Md.) 487, 498. Chap. XVII. § 791.] BAR BY AGREEMENT. 64i and want of power to convey ; ^ but courts of equity have always recognized both the duality of the husband and wife, 2 and the capacity of the latter to contract, ^ and give effect to contracts by the husband with her without the intervention of a trustee,* if the intervention of a third ' Stone V. Gazzam, 46 Ala. 369, 273, 275 ; Frierson v. Frierson, 21 Ala. 549, 555 * Pillow r. Wade, 31 Ark. 678 ; Dibble v. Hutton, 1 Day (Conn.) 221 : Hoker v. Boggs, 63 111. 161 ; Scarborough v. Watkins, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 540; s.c. 50 Am. Dec. 528 ; Johnson v. StiUings, 53 Me. 427 ; Allen r. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 374 ; Martin v. Martin, 1 Me. (1 Greenl.) 394, 398 ; Preston v. Fyer, 38 Md. 231, 325 ; Roby V. Phelon, 118 Mass. 541 ; Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 333; Frissell v. Rozier, 19 Mo. 448 ; Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 260, 264 ; Patterson v. Patterson, 45 N. H. 164, 166 ; White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 338, 333' Fowler V. Treboin, 16 Ohio St. 493, 497 ; Johnston v. Johnston, 31 Pa. St. 450, 453; s.c. 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 468 ; Barron v. Barron, 34 Vt. 375, 398 ; Sweat V. Hall, 8 Vt. 187, 189 ; Putnam v. Bicknell, 18 Wis. 333, 335; Wallingsfordu Allen, 85 U. S. (10 Pet.) 583, 593; bk. 9 L. ed. ; Beard v. Beard, 3 Atk. 73. « Morrison •;;. Tliistle, 67 Mo. 596, 600; Livingston v. Livingston,3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 539. Barron v. Barron, 34 Vt. 375, 398 ; Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 144, 149 ; Cannel v. Buckel, 2 Pr. Wms. 243,244; Pybus V. Smith, 4 Brown Ch. 485. By the civil law the fiction of the merge of the wife's identity in the personality of the hus- band was unknown ; husband and wife were treated as dis- tinct persons capable of con- tracting, in a limited sense, with each other, and the wife could contract with other per- sons and liave separate debts and interests. Livingston v. Livingston, 2 Jolin. Ch. (N. Y.) 539 ; Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 144 ; 1 Burge Col. & For. L. 206, 263. 3 See : Price v. Bingham, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 296, 318. She may even sell her separate estate to her husband for a valuable con- sideration, and the sale will be upheld in eqiiity. Talhnger v. Mandeville, 113 N. Y. 437, 433 ; s.c. 21 N. E. Rep. 125; Boyd V. De La Montagnie, 73 N. Y. 498 ; Hunt V. Johnson, 44 N. Y. 27 ; Winans v. Peebles, 32 N. Y. 423 ; White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328. ■>Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181, 191 ; s.c. 9 Am. Rep. 679 ; Jones V. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 329: bk. 35 L. ed. 908. See : Deming v. Williams, 26 Conn. 326 ; Edwards v. Sheridan, 24 Conn. 165; Hawley v. Burgess, 28 Conn. 284 ; Winton i\ Barnum, 19 Conn. 171; The Fourth Ecclesiastical Society V. Mather, 15 Conn. 587 ; Morgan v. Thames Bank, 14 Conn. 99; Cornwall v. Hoyt, 7 Conn. 430 ; Fitch 'V. Ayer. 2 Conn. 143 ; Ward V. Grotty. 4 Met. (Ky.) 50 ; Gains r. Poor, 3 Met. (Ky.) 503 ; Stockett V. Holliday, 9 Md. 480 ; Bowie V. Stonestreet, 6 Md. 418 : Whitten r. Whitten, 57 Mass. (■! Cush.) 191 ; Adams i\ Brackett, 46 Mass. {'> Met.) 380 ; Phelps V. Phelps, 37 Mass. (30 Pick.) 556 ; Stanwood v. Stanwood, 17 Mass. 57; 648 BY ATTAINDER OF WIFE. [Book III, party would have made the transaction a valid one.^ To entitle a contract between husband and wife to be en- forced in equity, it must be fairly made,^ equitable,^ and based upon a proper consideration.* Sec. T92. Same—Ey attainder of wife.— At common law the attainder of the wife before the birth of issue would defeat the estate of the husband by the curtesy/ and a subsequent pardon of the wife would not entitle the hus- band to claim curtesy, except as to an estate of inher- itance subsequently acquired by the wife ; ® but the at- tainder of the wife subsequent to the birth of issue would not deprive the husband of his right to curtesy.''' Sec. 793. Same— By divesture of wife on breach of cov- enant.— The husband will be barred of a right to curtesy in the estates of inheritance of his wife by the divesture of the wife's estate on breach of condition in the deed creat- ing the estate, on which breach the grantor or his heirs enter ; because in such cases the donor resumes his prior Wilder v. Brooks, 10 Min. 50 ; Simmons v. McElwain, 36 Barb. (N. Y.Hig, 420; Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 57 ; Neufville v. Thompson, 3 Ed. Ch. ■ (N. Y.) 93 ; Livingston v. Livingston, 3 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 337 ; Williams v. Latourette, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 9 ; Wood V. Warden, 30 Ohio 518 ; Huber v. Huber, 10 Ohio 371 ; Jones V. Obenchain, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 259 ; WaUingsford v. Allen, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.) 583 ; bk. 9 L. ed. ; Sexton V. Wheaton, 21 U. S. (8 Wheat.) 229 ; bk! 5 L. ed. ; Lucas V. Lucas, 1 Atk. 270 ; More V. Freeman, Bunb. 205 ; Walter v. Hodge, 2 Swanst. 97 ; Battersbee v. Fanington, 1 ■Swanst. 106 ; Freemantle v. Bankes, 5 Ves. 79. ' Huber v. Huber, 10 Ohio 371 ; Barron v. Barron, 24 Vt. (1 Deane) 375, 398 ; More V. Freeman, Bunb. 205. ' Helms V. Franciscus, 2 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 544, 546 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 402. sjenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319, 323. See : Morrison v. Thistle, 07 Mo. 596, 600. ■■ Loomis V. Brush, 36 Mich. 40, 46. Contract for separation. — A husband and wife have an inviolable right to the aid, comfort, and society of each other, and can- not enter into an agreement between themselves for a separ- ation which will be enforced in common law or equity, in the absence of statutory provisions. Helms V. Franciscus, 2 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 544; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 403 ; Whitney v. Classon, 138 Mass. 49; s.c. 19 Cent. L. J. 449, and note ; Head v. Head, 3 Atk. 550 ; Westmeath v. Westmeath, Cond. Ch. 60 ; Warrali v. Jacob, 3 Merv. 368. ^ Gillespie v. Worford, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 40a ; 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 351a ; 4 Hawk. PI. Cr. 785. ' Gate V. Wiseman, Dyer 140b ; 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 393. ■• See : Post, § 809. Chap. XVII. § 794.] BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. (]-10 estate, and the derivative estate by the curtesy falls with the estate of the wife, of which it was derived ; but until such entry by the grantor or his heirs, the husband's in- terests attach. A distinction is to be made between a case in which the estate of the wife is determined by entry, or proceedings instituted upon the breach of a condition contained in the deed, and one in which a limited fee is determined in accordance with the provis- ions of the instrument creating it. In the latter case, on the determination of the wife's estate, the husband's in- terests exist, notwithstanding the expiration of the fee to which it is attached.^ This distinction is recognized by Lord Mansfield in Buckworth v. Thirkell,^ where it was held that curtesy attached to an estate given a wife and her heirs, but in case she died before the age of twenty- one, and without issue, then over, the wife having had issue, who died before her, and then died under the age of twenty-one. There is some conflict in the decisions upon this question, but it is thought that the true dis- tinction rests on the circumstances, that in the case of an entry for a condition broken destroys the estate, but in case of the determination of the estate in accordance with the terms of the instrument creating it, a new estate arises by the limitation, which is to be postponed by the prior rights of the previous estate, one of which is the estate by curtesy.^ Sec. 794. Same — By judicial proceedings under statute. — The right of a husband to curtesy in the land of his wife may be barred by judicial proceedings under the statute in an action where he is a party, as where the land is ordered to be sold free from the curtesy, and the interest on the proceeds to be given to the husband ; * but if the hus- band is not made a party to the proceedings in which the adjudication is made in reference to him and his estate, his curtesy will not be barred.^ It is thought that where ' 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, Butler's Prest. Ab., tit. 384. note, 170. '' Jacques v. Ennis, 25 N. J. Eq. (10 2 3 Bos. & P. 632, note. C. E. Gr.) 403. 8 Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Md. 147 ; » Id. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33 ; 050 BY WILL OF WIFE WHEN. [Book IIL property subject to a tenancy by the curtesy is ordered by a court to be sold, that the proceeds of the sale will take the place of the land and be subject to the burden of the curtesy ; but if these proceeds are reinvested by the husband as guardian, and the title to the land taken to himself as guardian of his children, that his right to curt- esy will thereby be barred.^ Sec. Y95. Same— By consent of husband to wife's will.— At common law a married woman was incapable of making a will, but in most if not all of the states this rule has been changed by statute. Under these statutes a married woman cannot by her will, as a general rule, bar her husband's right to an estate by the curtesy ^ in her real property, unless he gives his assent by joining her iu the instrument, or gives his written consent there- to ; in either of which cases the instrument will have that effect, the joinder serving as a relinquishment of his in- terest in favor of the donee. ^ But it is thought that in case the husband is insolvent at the time of giving his assent to the will of his wife, it will be inoperative as to persons injuriously affected thereby ; because it will have the nature of a voluntary conveyance of his interest in his wife's real estate, and for that reason be fraudulent ' Bogy V. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ; s.c. Finch v. Finch, 15 Ves, 50 ; s.c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. W. 10 Rev. Rep. 13. Rep. 186 ; ^Bee: Post, § 807. Kemp V. Cossart, 47 Ark. 63 ; ' See : George v. Bussing, 15 B. Robirison v. Robinson, 45 Ark. Mon. (Ky.) 563 ; 481 ; Burke v. Colbert, 144 Mass. 160, Milner v. Freeman, 40 Ark. 63. 161 ; Advancement is presumed from the Burroughs v. Nutting, 105 Mass. purchase of land by a father in 328 ; the name of his children, and Silsby v. Bullock, 93 Mass. (10 the equitable as well as legal Allen) 94 ; estate vests in them. McBride's Estate, 81 Pa. St. 803. Bogy V. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ; Consent of court.— Under some s.c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. statutes giving to married wo- W. Rep. 186 ; men power to dispose of their Kemp V. Cossart, 47 Ark. 62 ; real property by will, she may Robinson v. Robinson, 45 Ark. do so by applying to a court 481 ; and securing such power, in Milner v. Freeman, 40 Ark. 63 ; case of the sickness, msanity, Finch V. Finch, 15 Ves. 50; s.c. or absence from the state of the 10 Rev. Rep. 12 ; husband, or for other good Grey v. Grey, 2 Swanst. 594. • cause shown, as under the Same— Eebuttal.— This presump- Mass. Gen. Stat., c. 108, § 3. tion as to advancement may See : Staples v. Brown, 95 Mass. be rebutted ; but does not give (18 Allen) 64. way to slight circumstances. Chap. XVII. §§ 796-798.] BY CONVEYANCE. 651 and void as to existing creditors.^ Where the husband has given his consent to the will of his wife devising lier real estate, and thereby rendering it valid, he may re- voke such assent any time before tlie probate of the will.^ Sec. T96. Same— By statute of limitations.— The right of the husband to an estate by the curtesy may be barred by the statute of limitations.^ Thus it has been held that a husband will not be heard to assert his right as tenant by the curtesy to the lands of his deceased wife after a delay of twelve years, wholly unexplained, even though during that time he claimed the lands and received the rents as guardian of his infant child.* Sec. 197. Same— By statutory enactment.— The husband's estate by curtesy initiate in the lands of his wife is only an inchoate interest, and does not become a vested right until after the death of the wife ; ® it may therefore be taken away or impaired by legislative enactment.® Sec. 798. Same— By husband's conveyance.- We have already seen'' that a husband has power to convey or > Silsby V. Bullock, 95 Mass. (10 Barn. & Aid. 474 ; s.c. 5 Eng. Allen) 94, 96. C. L. 375. * Greorge r. Bussing, 15 B. Mon. (Ity.) ■• Owens v. Dunn, 85 Tenn. (1 Pick.) 558, 563 ; 131 ; s.c. 2 8. W. Rep. 39. Silsby V. BuUock, 95 Mass. (10 " Hill v. Chambers, 30 Midi. 433, Allen) 94, 96. 427 ; The Supreme Court of Indiana Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) say in the case of Roach v. 599. White, 94 Ind. 510, that a hus- « Strong v. Clem, 13 Ind. 37, 41 ; band's consent to his wife's Hill v. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422, devise of her real estate to her 437 ; child by a former marriage Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93, 95 ; estops him from claiming title Thurber v. Townsend, 32 N. Y. to one-third of the premises 517; „„ „ , ,^r ffiven him by Ind. Rev. St. Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. (N. 1881 §2485. Y.) 843, 346; 3 Shortall S.Hinckley,81 lU. 319,337; Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N Y ) Owenso). Dunn, 85 Tenn. (1 Pick.) 508; s.c. 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 31, 131 • s.c. 3 S. W. Rep. 39 ; 36 ; Atkvn's Lessee v. Horde, 1 Burr. Denny v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St. 60 576, 580 ; See :' Carter v. Cantrell, 16 Ark. MelUnger v. Bausman, 45 Pa. St. 254 . 533, 539 ; Neal V. Robertson, 3 Dana (Ky.) Sharpless t; Borough of West- . gg . Chester, 1 Grant (Pa.) 257. 260 ; Thompson v. Green, 4 Ohio St. Alexander v. Alexanders 7 S E. niQ. Rep. 355 ; s.c. 1 L.R. A. 131 ; Weisinger v. Mui-phy, 2 Head Kingsley v. Smith, 14 V/is. 360, (Tenn ) 674 ; 365 ; Doe d. Wright v. Plumptre, 3 i See : Ante, § 786. g52 BY FINE AND RECOVERY. [Book III. lease his estate in the lands of his wife, and he may of course release it to any one where he does not thereby impair the rights of third persons.^ Such a release of the estate by curtesy is effected by joining with his wife in a deed of conveyance,^ because such joinder acts as a relinquishment in favor of the grantee.^ Such joint deed may convey the interest of the husband as a tenant by the curtesy, although ineffective to convey the wife's interest, because the certificate of acknowledgment is defective in that she was not examined separate and apart from her husband, as the statute requires.* But to bar the curtesy the husband's joinder in the deed must be in the manner prescribed by law.^ Sec. 799. Same— Same— in land purchased with proceeds.— A husband who is tenant by the curtesy initiate joining with his wife in the conveyance of her lands, and per- mitting the proceeds thereof to be invested in property in trust for her and her children by a former husband, thereby bars all his right to curtesy in the land thus ac- quired ; ^ and it has been held that where a husband, as guardian of his children, sells his interest in the land of which he is tenant by the curtesy, and invests the pro- ceeds of the sale in other lands, taking the title in his children, his right of curtesy is thereby barred.^ Sec. 800. Same— By jlne and recovery.— After the vesting ' See : Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. for the land, after the death of 83, 86. the wife, until after the hus- = Haines v. Ellis, 24 Pa. St. 253. band's death. See : Carpenter v. Davis, 73 111. Jackson v. Hodges, 2 Tenn. Ch. 14 ; 276. Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776 ; ^ Thus where the husband's joinder Jacques v. Ennis, 25 N. J. Eq. in the conveyance was not evi- (10 C. E. Gr.) 402 ; denoed by a deed, it was held Gilmore v. Gilmore, 7 Oreg. 374 that the curtesy was not barred, Houck V. Ritfcer, 76 Pa. St. 280. and that no estoppel would ' McBride's Estate, 81 Pa. St. 303. arise against the husband by * Mettler v. Miller, 129 111. 630 ; s.c. reason of the factthat the wife, 23 N. W. Rep. 529 ; ivith his consent, took in part Jackson v. Hodges, 2 Tenn. Ch. payment for the land a promis- , ^'°- sory note made by her husband A conveyance nncler a power of at- to a third person. tarney by husband and wife of Houck v. Ritter, 76 Pa. St. 280. all tlie right, title, and interest « Carpenter v. Davis, 72 111. 116. of the husband and wife in ' Bogy v. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ; s.c. land, will pass the estate by 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 2 S. W. curtesy of the husband, and the Rep. 186. children of the wife cannot sue Chap. XVII. §§ 801, 802.] BY SETTLEMENT IN TRUST. G53 of the husband's estate by curtesy initiate, it may be defeated by a recovery of the wife's lands in an action against the husband and wife, or by a vaUd fine levied,' or recovery suffered by the husband and wife.^ Sec. 801. Same— By conveyance by wife during coverture— Most if not all of the states have passed statutes enabling women to hold property free from marital rights, and to deal with the same as though they were /ernes sole, and under these statutes the common-law right of curtesy still exists, subject, however, to be defeated by the convey- ance to a third person ; should she die without exercis- ing her right during life, the husband's common-law right to curtesy will attach.^ Sec. 802. Same— By settlement in trust.— The separate property of the wife may be so settled upon her by statute,* or by deed,^ or devise,® that the husband's estate by the curtesy may never arise, or where it does arise, may be defeasible by deed, duly executed by the wife before death,'' or by will;^ and it has been said that a secret settlement made by an intended wife on the eve of her marriage, and without the knowledge of her future husband, conveying her property to her separate use for life, with remainder to her children born, and to be born, is valid ; ® but the better opinion is thought to be that ' As to fine, see : Ante, % 530, et seq. * Tong v. Marvin, 15 Mich. 60, 70, - As to common recovery, see : 73 ; Ante, S 533. Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. 8 Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280 ; E. Gr.) 204, 208. Thurber v. Townsend, 22 N. Y. See : Post, bk. III., c. VII., sec- 517 ; tion IV. Clark V. Clark, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) ' Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29, 37. 581. ° Id. In some of these statutes, as for ' See : Pool v. Blakie, 58 lU. 495,502; instance the New York statute, Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. the tenancy by the curtesy E. Gr.) 204, 208. vests only where the land re- « Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 791 ; mains undisposed of by a deed Stokes v. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. or by will, and a devise of the 267, 269. lands, as well as a conveyance, ' Anonymous, 34 Ala. 430 ; s.c. 73 will therefore defeat the ten- Am. Dec. 461; anoy Taylor v. Pugh, 1 Hare ; s.c. See : Ryder v. Hulse, 24' N. Y. 23 Eng. Ch. 608. 373 . In Anonymous, 34 Ala. 430 ; s.c. Burke v. Valentine, 52 Barb. (N. 73 Am. Dec. 461, at the time of Y ) 412 ; the settlement the woman was Scott V. Guernsey, 60 Barb. (N. pregnant by her intended hus- Y.) 163. band. 654 BY EQUITABLE ESTATE. [Book III. such a settlement in fraud pf the husband's rights may- be avoided by him/ except in those cases where the hus- band is apprised before the marriage of the disposition which his intended wife has made respecting her prop- erty.^ Sec. 803. Same — By instrument creating equitable es- tate.— Where such is the intention of the parties, a deed or devise giving an equitable estate may be so drawn as to exclude the husband's right to estate by the curtesy ; ^ and the husband will be excluded from such estates wherever there is a manifest intention to exclude him.* Sec. 804. Same — Same — Provisions excluding curtesy. — In order that a husband may be excluded from his estate by the curtesy in the trust estate of his wife, the inten- tion of the parties must be manifest,* and the words of exclusion plain ; it is not enough that the estate is granted to the wife for her sole and separate use," even though the In the case of Lowry v. Steel, 4 Ohio, 170, where a woman, in contemplation of marriage, granted a term of seventy-five years of her estate to a trustee, in trust for her own use dui-ing the contemplated coverture, her husband was held to be entitled to the estate as tenant by the curtesy. ' See : Tucker v. Andrews, 13 Me. 24; Baker v. Jordan, 73 N. C. 145 ; England v. Dowes. 3 Beav. 533 ; 2 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 174. ' See : Cheshire v. Payne, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 618 ; Cole V. O'Neil, 3 Md. Ch. 174 ; Terry v. Hopkins, 1 Hill (S. C.) L. 19 ; Fletcher v. Ashley, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 184, 332,-607. ' See : Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 361; Stokes V. MoKibbin, 18 Pa. St. 267; Cockran v. O'Hem, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 95 ; Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Cald. (Tenn.) 641; Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 716 ; Roberts v. Dixwell, 1 Atk. 606 ; Bennet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 810. Compare: Morgan v. Morgan, 3 Madd. 208. " Bennet v. Davis, 2. Pr. Wms. 816. * Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 6 Mo. App. 83, 549. " Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Gushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 689 ; MuUaney v. MuUaney, 4 N. J. Eq. (8 H. W. Gr.) 16, 18 ; s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 288 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 229 ; Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; Cockran ?). O'Hem, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 95. A fit'aer gave land in trust for his daughter, to be at her disposi- tion, the trust to cease on the death of her husband, and the legal title to vest in the daugh- ter ; the daughter died before her husband, and the court held that the latter was entitled to curtesy. Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 188. Where a testator devised in trust for his daughter, and her heirs, to her and their sole and sepa- rate use, ' ' free from the control of any husband tp whom she Chap. XVII. § 804.] PROVISIONS EXCLUDING CURTESY. G55 instrument creating the trust is executed by a husband, or an intended husband, for the benefit of his wife or in- tended wife.^ Every presumption is in favor of curtesy as a natural incident of a wife's estate, either legal or equitable, and for this reason the intent to exclude curt- esy must clearly appear.^ The mere expression that the purpose of a trust is a promotion of the interest of a married woman and her children, separate and apart from that of her husband, following a trust for the sole and separate use of the wife and her children, is not sufficient to destroy the husband's estate by the curtesy ; ^ neither is a devise to a married woman in tail, with a provision that on her death without issue, the executors may be married, and without any power of her or her hus- band aliening or disposing of the estate," the daughter being unmarried, and not contem- plating any particular marriage at the time, it was held that this provision did not bar curt- esy in her subsequent husband. Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149. Where a trust was created for the sole, separate, and peculiar use, benefit,and disposal of the wife, stipulating that ' ' the same or any part thereof shall not in any wise be subject or liable to the disposal, intermeddling, control, engagement, debts, or incumbrances of the husband,'' and that "it is the intention and meaning of these presents that nothing herein contained shall be taken and treated, either in law or in equity, to pass any title, claim or charge whatsoever " in the husband, — the court held that the intent to exclude the husband's estate by the curtesy was sufficiently clear. Cookran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. rPa.) 05. ' Rochon V. Lecatt, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 439 ; Gushing v. Blake, 39 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 399, affirmed 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 689. Compare: "Pennsylvania doc- trine," below. Curtesy should T)e favored rather than otherwise where a gift is made by the husband to the wife for her benefit ; and it is thought that there is nothing unreasonable in a provision of law, that under such circum- stances the husband should at the death of liis wife, without having disposed of the prop- ci-ty, have the same right to an estate by the curtesy he would have had if the property had been a gift from some one else, or had been purchased with her own mone}'. Gushing v. Blake, 39 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 399, affirmed 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 689 : Frazier v. Highto«'er, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 94. Same — Peimsylvauia doctrine. — Chief Justice Gibson says in Stokes V. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. 367, that the moving cause of a settlement for the benefit of a wife is generally to protect her and her issues from extravagan- cies and necessities of the hus- band, and that the presump- tion is especially strong that such was the motive where the husband himself puts his estate in trust for his wife, and that this furnishes an additional argument that the intent was to exclude the estate by the curtesy. See, to same effect : Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 301. « Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ; Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 6 Mo. App. 549. 3 Ege V. Medlar, 83 Pa. St. 86. 65G SEPARATE USE FOR WIFE. [Book III. shall sell the land for the benefit of the testator's nephew.-' And the reservation by the wife of the rents and profits to her estate to her sole and separate use durmg her life does not amount to an expression of an intention on her part to exclude her husband from curtesy therein after her death.^ The giving of a power of sale to the wife is not such an expression of intention to bar the husband's curtesy as to destroy it ; ^ so also a settle- ment in chancery, by which a trust is created for the wife, her heirs and assigns, giving her the control and possession of the property, with a power of appointment, does not destroy the husband's curtesy, where the wife dies without exercising the power.* Sec. 805. Same— By separate use for wife. — Where the wife is entitled to sole and separate use of her estate,, not only as regards the income, but also as regards the corpus, free and clear of the control of her husband and without being subject to his debts, liabilities, or engagements, any conveyance or devise of her estate by the wife will bar the husband's right of curtesy.^ Sec. 806. Same— Not by deed or will of grantor.— A hus- band's right to an estate by the curtesy in the lands of his wife is so inherent in all legal estates that it cannot be barred by any words of restraint or limitation of the devisor or grantor of the estate,** because the incidents of an estate do not depend upon the intention of it ; they are 1 Hay V. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 303. ster, L. R. 3 Eq. 367 ; - Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. Bennet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 316. I- 383. Express words are nscessary in See : Pitt v. Jackson, 3 Bro. C. C. some states to out off tlie hus- 51; band's curtesy. Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 348 ; See : Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea Bennet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 316. (Tenn.) 710. "The execution of the power con- « Mullaney v. Mullaney, 4 N J. ferred, however, may have Eq. (3 H. W. Gr.) 16, 18 ; s.c. that effect. 31 Am. Dec. 238 ; Ege V. Medlar, 83 Pa. St. 86. Rank v. Rank, 130 Pa. St. 191 ,; '• Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) s.c. 13 Atl. Rep. 827; 12 Cent. 641. Rep. 434 ; 21 W. N. C. 397 ; 5 Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 III. Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa! St. 449 ; „ ^^^ ' •„, , . Thornton's Exrs. v. Kreeps, 37 Pool V. Blakie, 53 111. 495 ; Pa. St. 391; Stokes V. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. Buchanan v. Shiffer, 3 Yeates ^ 367 ; (Pa,) 374 ; Cooper V. MacDonald, 7 Ch. Div. Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; 388, overrulmg Moore v. Web- DeHart v. Dean, 2 McA. D. C. 60. Chap. XVII. §§ 807, 808.] NOT BY WIFE'S WILL. 65T engrafted on it by law, and generally, at least, without any regard to the intention of the grantor, and even in disregard of it.^ Thus it has been held that an estate by the curtesy is not barred by a deed of land to a daughter " and her heirs and assigns, exclusively of her husband." ^ Sec. sot. Same— Not by will of wife.— We have already seen^ that at common law a wife could not dispose of her property by will. In many of the states, however, statutes have been passed enabling married women to dispose of their property, real and personal, by last will and testament, in the same manner as if they were un- married ; but such statutes do not enable the wife to deprive the husband of his right as tenant by the curtesy,'' and even where the will is made with the consent and approval of the husband.^ The failure of the husband to renounce a provision for him in his wife's will does not bar his right to curtesy, but bars his right to a distribu- tive share.^ Sec. 808. Same — Not by decree enjoining husband.— A decree made during the wife's lifetime, enjoining the husband from intermeddling with an estate of which the sole control is vested in the wife, will not bar the hus- band's right to curtesy in the property.^ ' Thornton's Exrs. v. KJreeps, 37 to give validity to a will Pa. St. 391. executed by the wife, or to « Rank v. Bank, 120 Pa. St. 191 ; affect its operation, except as S.C. 13 Atl. Rep. 837 ; 12 Cent. it may deprive him of his right Rep. 434 ; 31 W. N. C. 397. as tenant by the curtesy. 3 See • Ante, § 795. Burke v. Colbert, 144 Mass. 160 ; ••Roach V. White, 94 Ind. 510; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. 753; 3 N. Middleton v. Stewart, 47 N. J. Eng. Rep. 788 ; Eq (3 Dick.) 293 ; s.c. 20 Atl. Burroughs v. Nutting, 105 Mass. Rep. 846 ; 14 N. J. L. J. 15 ; 238 ; Hall V. HaU, 32 Ohio St. 184 ; Silsby v. Bullock, 92 Mass. (10 Me Teacle's, 133 Pa. St. 533 ; s.c. Allen) 94. 19 Atl. Rep. 274 ; 35 W. N. C. Same — Indiana doctrine. ^A hus- 3'79_ ' band's consent to his wife's de- ' Roach' I). White, 94 Ind. 510; vise of her real estate to her child Middleton v. Stewart, 47 N. J. by a former marriage estops Eq. (2 Dick.) 293; s.c. 30 Atl. him from claiming title to one- Rep. 846 ; 14 N. J. L. J. 15. third of the premises given him "Cunningham v. Cunningham, 30 by Ind. Rev. St. 1881, § 2485. W. Va. 599 ; s.c. 5 S. E. Rep. 139. Roach v. White, 94 Ind. 510. Husl)and's consent to wife's will— ' Rochon v. Lecatt, 2 Stew. (Ala. Massaclmsetts' doctrine. — Thehus- 429. band's consent is not necessary 42 658 NOT BY ANTE-NUPTIAL ACT. [Book III. Sec. 809. Same— Not by attainder of wife after issue.— We have already seen that at common, law the attainder of the wife before the birth of issue would defeat the estate of the husband by the curtesy ; ^ but after the estate has become initiate by the birth of issue, it will not be barred hj the attainder of the wife, or any other thing or act of the wife that works a forfeiture of the estate.^ Sec. 810. Same — Not by ante-nuptial deed.— We have already seen that a conveyance made by the wife prior to marriage, in fraud of the husband's marital rights, may be avoided by him,^ except in those cases where he has notice of the disposition.* Thus where a woman, on the eve of her marriage, without the knowledge or consent of her contemplated Jiusband, conveyed her property,^ without consideration,* it was held to be a fraud upon the rights of the husband and void as to him.'^ Sec. 811. Same— Not by ante-nuptial gift.— The hus- band's right to curtesy in his wife's estate of inheritance will not be barred by a gift of her lands by the wife before marriage ; because at common law, a party having contracted with another to marry, cannot give away his or her property without the consent of the other party to themarriage contract,^ it being in deroga- tion of the marital rights and just expectations of such other pai'ty.* Notice to one party to a marriage con- ' See : Ante, § 793. (2 Stock.) 543 ; ^ Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. Spencer i;. Spencer, 3 Jones (N.C.) 793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Eq. 404. Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. "Robinson v. Buck, 71 Pa. St. 386. =iSee: Ante, §803. 'The fact that the grantee after- ^ Chandler v. Hollmgsworth, 8 wards bequeathed a legacy to Del. Ch. 99 ; the wife, whioli she, with Welch V. Chandler, 13 B. Mon. the assent of her husband, re- (Ky. ) 420 ; ceived was held not to estop him Hobbs V. Blandford, 7 T. B. Mon. from claiming his curtesy in (Ky.) 469 ; the land after his wife's death. Williams V. Carle, 10 N. J. Eq. Robinson v. Buck, 71 Pa. St. 386. (2 Stock.) 543 , 8 Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ; Spencer v. Spencer, 3 Jones (N. s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 193 ; C.) Eq. 404 ; Boston v. Gillespie, 5 Jones(N. C.) Eobmson v. Buck, 71 Pa. St. 386. Eq. 358 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 437. ' See : Chandler v. Hollingsworth, See : Freeman v. Dunn, 45 111. 61. 3 Del. Ch. 99 ; » Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ; Hobbs r;. Blandford, 7 T. B. Mon. s.c. 93 Am. Deo. 193 ; ^J^7-^ '^^ ' Tucker v. Andrews, 13 Me. 134, Williams V. Carle, 10 N. J. Eq. 135 ; Chap. XVII. §§ 812, 813.] FORFEITUEE-BY ALIENAGE. G59 tract that the other has given away property after entering into the contract, but before marriage, will not hinder the injured party from insisting on the invalidity of the gift.^ There is an exception to the rule, however, in the case of a gift made by a woman to her children by a former husband, on the eve of her marriage, when her second husband knew of the gift before the marriage ; and this is true even though she was indebted at the time when the gift was made, if he was cognizant of that fact, and there was no fraudulent concealment by her.^ Sec. 812. Same — Not by abaiidoiiinent of possession to co- tenant in common.— A husband occupying p2?emises as a tenant by the curtesy does not lose his estate by abandon- ing the possession of the land to a co-tenant in common. Thus where a tenant by the curtesy of an undivided portion of land abandoned the land for more than forty years, leaving it in the possession of another tenant in common, whose occupancy was not an ouster ; this was held not to be a forfeiture of the estate, and that the reversioner of such undivided portion had no right of entry upon the tenant in possession, during the life of the tenant by the curtesy.^ Sec. 813. Porfeiture— By alienage.— At common law the alienage of the husband was an insuperable bar to his right of curtesy in his wife's estates of inheritance.* So strict was this rule that where an alien husband made his preliminary declaration of his intention to become a citizen before the death of his wife, and completed his naturalization after her death, he was not entitled to an Logan V. Simmons, 3 Ired. (N. C.) 23 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 76. Eq. 487 ; ' Poston v. Gillespie, 5 Jones (N. C.) England v. Downs, 3 Beav. 533 ; Eq. 358 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 437. Strathmore v. Bowes, 1 Ves. Jr. ' McClure v. Miller, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 23 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 76. Eq. 107 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 532. The doctrine of the common law was " Withani v. Perkins, 2 Me. (3 that the burthens to which a Greenl.) 400. husband isUableare a consider- ■> Foss v. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) ation for his marital rights, 131 ; upon which therefore fraud Reese v. Waters, 4 Watts & b. may be committed. (Pa.) 145. Strathmore v. Bowes, 1 Ves. Jr. See : Post, § 884. ggO FORFEITURE— BY DIVORCE. [Book III. estate by the curjiesy.^ The reason for this is the fact that the law will do nothing in vain, and therefore it will not cast an estate upon one who cannot by law hold it,^ But the former rule as to disability because of alienage has been largely done away with by statute in this country.^ Sec. 814. Same— 3y decree of divorce.— The tendency of a decree of divorce is to destroy the relations of the husband and wife, and all interests growing out of such relation. Such a decree may be either a decree declar- ing the alleged marriage to be null, that is a nuUage decree ; a temporary decree granted in some jurisdic- tions, that is a decree nisi ; a decree a vinculo matri- monii, which has the effect of dissolving absolutely the bonds of matrimony ; or a decree a mensa et thoro, which has the effect of separating the parties from bed and board merely. Each of these decrees has a different effect upon the relations of the parties and their property rights.* Sec. 816. Same— Same— 1. Decree of nullity.— A decree of nullity is a judicial declaration that no marriage exists ; it is not, properly speaking, a decree of divorce, and does not make an alleged marriage void, but declares that it was void from the beginning.^ If the pretended mar- riage is a nullity, no rights ever arose under it, and the woman will be entitled to her property as a single individual, the same as though no relation whatever had existed.^ ■ Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) Powell v. PoweU, 18 Kan. 371 ; 131. Succession of Mine-viUe, 15 La. * Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) Arva. 343 ; 131 ; Chase v. Chase, 55 Me. 21 ; Wilber v. Tobey, 33 Mass. (16 Lincoln v. Lincoln, 6 Robt. (N. Pick.) 177, 179. Y.) 535 ; Compare : Lumb v. Jenkins, 100 Wightman v. Wightman, 4 John. Mass. 537 ; Ch. (N. Y.) 343 ; Ross V. Ross, 139 Mass. 843, 359. Smith v. Morehead, 6 Jones (N. ' See : Post, bk. III., c. XVII., sec- C.) Eq. 360. tion V. 6 Cage v. Acton, 1 Ld. Raymo id, * See : 65 Am. Dec. 365, note. 515. ' See : Rawdon v. Rawdon, 38 Ala. See : 65 Am. Dec. 355, note. 565 ; Third persons misled by the sup- Brown V. Westbrook, 37 Ga. 103 ; posed relation will probably not Chap. XVII. §§ 816, 817.] DIVORCE A VINCULO. 661 Sec. 816. Same— Same— 2. Decree nisi.— Where a decree nisi is granted and is afterwards made absolute, it has the effect of a decree of divorce, and has full virtue both as to the status of the parties and as to their property- rights.^ Sec. 817. Same— Same—S. A vinculo.— A divorce a vin- culo matrimonii of itself destroys not only the husband's estate during coverture,^ but also terminates his estate by curtesy initiate,^ and destroys the relation the hus- be debarred of their rights by the decree. See : Perry v. Meddowcraft, 10 Beav. 122 ; Clews V. Bathurst, 2 Stra. 960 ; DeCoster r. ViUa, 2 Stra. 961 ; Harrison v. Southampton, 17 Eng. L. & Eq. 364. See : 6o Am. Dec. 355, note. Thougli a marriage be ipso facto void, yet it is proper that there should be a judicial decision to that effect by some court of competent jurisdiction. Wightmanv. Wightman, 4 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 343, 345 ; Ex parte Turing, 1 Ves. & B. 140. See : Moors v. Moors, 121 Mass. 233; Ansey v. Ansey, 45 L. J. Mat. Cas. 56 ; Eavencroft v. Ravencroft, 41 L. J. Mat. Cas. 28 ; Hulsey v. Hulsey, 41 L. J. Mat. Cas. 19 ; Whitmore v. Whitmore, 35 L. J. Mat. Cas. 52 ; Harding v. Harding, 34 L. J. Mat. Cas. 9 ; Stoate V. Stoate, 32 L. J. Mat. Cas. 120 ; Bolton V. Bolton, 31 L. J. Mat. Cas. 115 ; Fowler v. Fowler, 31 L. J. Mat. Cas. 31 ; Master v. Master, 31 L. J. Mat. Cas. 7 ; Boody V. Boody, 30 L. J. Mat. Cas. 95 ; Alexander v. Alexander, L. R. 2 P. & D. 691 ; Deming v. Deming, L. R. 1 P. & D. 531 : Noble V. Noble, L. R. 1 P. & D. 691 ; Walton V. Walton, L. R. 1 P. & D. 227. See : 65 Am. Dec. 355, note. 2 Howey v. Goings, 13 111. 95, 108 ; s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 427 ; Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 599, 602, 604. ' Boy km v. Rain, 28 Ala. 332, 343 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 349 ; Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn. 225, 230 ; Townsend v. GriflSn, 4 Har. (Del.) 440,442; Emmert v. Hays, 89 lU. 11, 18 ; Clark V. Lott, 11 111. 105, 114 ; Doe r. Brown, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 309, 310 ; Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.) 489, 490 ; Oldliam V. Henderson, 5 Dana (Ky.) 254. 256 ; Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260, 271 ; Clark V. Slaughter, 38 Miss. 64, 68; Gould V. Crow, 57 Mo. 200, 204 ; Renwick v. Renwick, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 430, 424 ; Sackett v. Giles, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 204 ; Schoch's Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 351, 355 * Burt V. Hulburt, 16 Vt. 292 ; Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326, 336; Gould V. Webster, 1 Tyl. (Vt.) 409, 415. Compare : Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 632, 639. Subsequently acquired lands. — A di- vorced husband is not entitled to a tenancy by tlie curtesy in lands acquired by his wife after the dissolution of the marriage. Schultz V. Moll, 10 N. Y. Supp. 703. Foreign divorces — Massachusetts dot- trine. — As to foreign divorces, it is well settled in Massachu- setts that a decree of divorce 663 DIVOECE AT SUIT OF WIFE. [Book III. band and wife have the same as if it was dissolved by death/ and restores the wife to her former status and makes her a feme sole,^ and restores her realty to her absolutely" and entire ;* and all realty belonging to her held by the husband after such decree of divorce is held by him as a trustee.^ Sec. 818. Same— Same— Same— At suit of -wife.— 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, because the husband by his violation of the marriage contract forfeits all equitable right to the wife's property ; even when the property belonged to her before the separation, and has not been reduced into actual possession by the husband ; and it will be restored to her by a court of equity.® rendered in another state, in which the legal domicile of the parties is at the time, and ac- cording to its laws, even for a cause which is not a ground of divorce by the Massachusetts statutes, and although their marriage took place while they were domiciled in Massachu- setts, is valid there and con- clusive in a suit concerning the husband's interest or the wife's dower in lands of that common- wealth. See : Eoss v. Eoss, 129 Mass. 343, 348, 359 ; Sewall V. Sewall, 133 Mass. 156 ; Burlen v. Shannon, 115 Mass. 438; Hood V. Hood, 110 Mass. 463 ; Hood V. Hood, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 196; Clark V. Clark, 63 Mass. (8 Cush.) 385; Barber v. Eoot, 10 Mass. 360. ' Clarke v. Lott, 11 III. 105 ; WhitseU V. Mills, 6 Ind. 329 ; McCreary v. McCrearv, 5 Iowa 333; Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.) 489,490; Webster v. Webster, 58 Me. 189 ; Barber v. Eoot, 10 Mass. 360, 271 ; Hunt V. Thompson, 61 Mo. 148 ; People V. Hovey, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 117; Hull V. Hull, 2 Strobh. (N. C.) Eq. 174 ; Miltimore v. Miltimore, 40 Pa. St. 151; Estate of Kentzinger, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 265 ; Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Vai) 599. 2 Piper V. May, 51 Ind. 283. ^ Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn. 225, 235 ; Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.) 489, 490. ■• Wheeler ■;;. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn. 225, 335 ; Howey v. Goings, 13 111. 95 ; s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 437 ; Doe V. Brown, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 309; Barber v. Eoot, 10 Mass. 260, 271 ; Eenwick v. Eenwick, 10 Paige ,Ch. (N. Y.) 430,434; Branford v. Branford, 4 Oreg. 30; Flowry v. Beeker, 2 Pa. St. 470 ; Estate of Eentzing, 3 Ashm. (Pa.) 455; Byrne v. Byrne, 3 Tex. 366 ; Gould V. Webster, 1 Tyl. (Vt.) 314, 409 ; Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 599. ^ Sohoch's Estate, 33 Pa. St. 351. " Eenwick v. Eenwick, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 430, 434 ; Holmes v. Hoknes, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 295, 397. Chap. XVII. §§ 819-821.] DIVORCE A MENSA. 663 Sec. 819. Same — Same — Same — At suit of husband. — Where a husband obtains an absolute divorce from his wife for a cause other than adultery, he has no interest in the divorced wife's land as tenant by the curtesy, because she becomes entitled to the immediate possession of all her realty the same as if he were dead.^ In some of the states, however, it is provided by statute that a divorce a vinculo for the adultery of the wife does not affect the husband's right to curtesy in her estate of inheritance.^ Sec. 820. Same— Same— Same— Bights of third persons.— The destruction of the husband's estate by the curtesy by decree of divorce a vinculo, at the suit of the wife, destroys all his interest in her property ; ^ and all sub- sequent assignments by him will convey no greater or better rights in and to such property than he himself has.* If the wife's lands have been improperly assigned by the husband, the decree of divorce will restore the same to her ; ^ but it is thought that such a decree will not be allowed to affect the interests of third parties which were acquired in good faith of the husband's estate by the curtesy. Thus it was held in Gillespie v. Worford,* that a divorce for a cause arising after marriage and not affecting its validity, would not divest the husband's curtesy in the hands of a hona fide purchaser prior to the decree of the divorce. Sec. 821. Same— Same— 4. A mensa.— A decree of divorce a mensa et thoro does not dissolve the marriage, although it separates the parties and establishes separate interests between them ;'' therefore, in the absence of statutory provisions, such a decree of divorce will not destroy the estate by curtesy of the husband in the wife's realty.^ ' Moran v. Somes, 28 N. E. Rep. 489, 490. 153. Compare: McConnell i'. Wen- See : Ante, § 817. rich, 16 Pa. St. 365, 371. " Neb. Comp. Stat. 1881, c. 35, § 24. ' Kriger v. Day, 19 Mass. (3 Pick.) See : Mass. Pub. Stat. , c. 146, § 24. 316. » See : Ante, § 817. ' 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 633. ■• Boykin v. Rain, 28 Ala. 833, 343 ; ■" Dean v. Richmond, 32 Mass. (5 s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 349 ; Pick.) 461, 465. Starr v. Pease, 8 Conn. 541, 545 ; " Roohon i: Lecatt, 2 Stew. (Ala.) Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.) 439 ; 664 FORFEITURE BY ADULTERY. [BOOK III. In the absence of statutory enactment, or a provision to that effect in the decree, it will not restore to the wife the interest in her real estate,-^ Sec. 822. Same— By adultery.— At common law the hus- band's estate by the curtesy is not forfeited by adultery on the part of the husband.^ The husband's estate in the lands of his wife differs in this respect from the estate of the wife in the lands of her husband. The reason for this difference is the fact that the statute of Westminster 11.^ expressly ordained the forfeiture of dower on the adultery of the Wife, but did not make such misconduct on the part of the husband work a forfeiture of his curtesy.^ This rule of the common law has been altered by statutes in several states of the Union so as to make adultery on the part of the husband work a forfeiture of his curtesy.^ Sec. 823. Same— By abandonment of wife.— At common law the husband does not forfeit his right to curtesy in the lands of his wife by abandoning her and living in adultery with another woman ; '^ but by statutes in many of the states curtesy is lost by willful desertion of the wife,'' Smoot V. Leoatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260 ; 590 ; Teague v. Downs, 69 N. C. 280 ; Clark V. Clark, 6 Watts & S. Long v. Graeber, 64 N. C. 431. (Pa.) 85. 6 Smoot v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) ' Dean v. Richmond, 22 Mass. (5 590 ; Pick.) 461 ; Sidney v. Sidney, 3 Pr. Wms. Holmes v. Hobnes, 2 Barb. (N. 276. Y.) 297 ; See : Ante, § 822. Meehan v. Meehan, 2 Barb. (N. ' In Pennsylvania wiUfiil desertion of Y.) 377. the wife by the husband for a * Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; year or more preceding her s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; death deprives him of his right Smoot V. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) of curtesy under act of May 590 ; 4th, 1855. Sidney v. Sidney, 3 Pr. Wms. Bealor v. Hahn, 117 Pa. St. 109 ; 2'!'6 ; . s.c. 11 Atl. Rap. 770 : 9 Cent. Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & Rep. 599 ; 20 W. N. C. 19.5 ; P. 652, note ; Rees v. Waters, 9 Watts (Pa.) 90. 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, Butler's Same— In ITew York the same prin- note 170 ; ciple prevails. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 341 ; See : Dumond v. Magee, 4 John. 3 Prest. Abb., tit. 384. (N. Y.) 318. ^ 13 Edw. I., c. 134. Same—" Guilty intent," in willful "Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793; and malicious desertion, is man- s.c. 48 Am. Deo. 76, 81. ifest when, without cause or <• Kreiger v. Day, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) consent, the husband with- 316 ; draws from tlie residence. Chap. XVII. §§ 824-826.] FORFEITURE— BIGAMY. 665 unless the desertion be justified by the same cause that would support a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, or a mensa et thoro. Sec. 82-t. Same— By failure to provide.— In some of the states, by statutory provision, if a husband wilfully neglects or refuses to provide for his wife for a year or more previous to her death, he thereby forfeits his right to an estate by the curtesy in her lands. ^ Sec. S-25. Same— By bigamy.— In some of the states it has been provided by statute that the estate of the hus- band by curtesy in the lands of his wife shall be forfeited on the commission of bigamy.^ Sec. 826. Same— By wrongful alienation. — At common law a husband forfeited his estate by the curtesy in his wife's land by wrongful alienation, tending to the dis- herison of the reversioner or remainderman ; ^ but to have this effect the conveyance m.ust be a tortious one, as making a feoffment, levying a fine, importing a grant in fee, suffering a common recovery, joining the mise in a writ of right, and the like.* Although this rule is still enforced in this country in regard to feoffments,^ where- ever they still obtain, unchanged by statute, yet merely leasing or conveying in fee will not have that effect ; such conveyance will not carry a greater interest than the tenant possesses.^ Bealor v. Hahn, 117 Pa. St. 169 ; ' It has been held that even a feoff- s.c. 11 Atl. Rep. 776 ; 9 Cent. ment by the husband during Rep. 599 ; 20 W. N. C. 195 ; the life of the wife will not McClurg's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 366 ; work a forfeiture, but will give Ingersoll v. IngersoU, 49 Pa. St. the feoffee an estate for the life 349. of the husband. ' Such, for instance, as under the Pemberton v. Hicks, 1 Binn. Pennsylvania act of May 4th, (Pa.) 1. 1855, § 5 ; P. L. 431. " See : Boy kin u. Rain, 28 Ala. 332 ; ' See : Md" Rev. Code 1878, art. 72, s.o. 65 Am. Deo. 349 ; S 103, p. 807. Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 79 ; ' Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 46 ; B.C. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Junction Railroad v. Harris, 9 French V. Rollins, 21 Me. (8 Shep.) Ind. 184 ; 373 . Butterfield v. Beall, 3 Ind. 203 ; 2 Inst' 309 ; Meraman's Heirs v. Caldwell's 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 84. Heirs, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 82 ; s.c. 4 Id. 46 Am. Dec. 537 ; 666 FORFEITURE BY TREASON. [Book III. Sec. 827. Same— By attainder of husband of treason or felony.— At common law a tenant by the curtesy forfeited his estate by felony or attainder of treason ; ^ on such attainder of felony or treason, however, the estate was not forfeited to the commonwealth, but passed to the wife and her heirs discharged of the curtesy. ^ Section IV. — Curtesy under Statute. Sec. 828. Statutes— Generally. Sec. 829. Same — Construction of statutes. ' Sec. 830. Same — Married women's acts. Sec. 831. Same— Effect of statutes — On curtesy initiate. Sec. 833. Same — Same — On curtesy consummate. Section 828. statutes— Generally.— Thp husband's estate by the curtesy in the lands of his wife has been very much modified by statute in this country. This has been done principally by the increase of the power over and manage- ment of their property given to married women. The husband's estate by the curtesy in the statutes of some of the states is expressly given, ^ and by implication in French v. RoUins, 21 Me. (8 Shep.) 4 Kent Com. (13th ed. ) 84. 372 ; This law is now obsolete, and a Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. conveyance in fee, by a tenant 505 ; by the curtesy, though by in- Flagg V. Bean, 25 N. H. (4 Fost.) denture duly recorded, and 49 ; with a covenant of special war- Grout V. Townsend, 2 HiU (N. Y.) ranty, is not a forfeiture of the 554 ; estate. Johnson v. Bradley, 9 Ired. (N. M'Kee's Lessee v. Pfout, 3 U. S. C.) 363 ; (3 Dall.) 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690. Pemberton v. Hicks, 1 Binn. See : Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. (Pa.) 1 ; H. 505 ; M'Kee's Lessee v. Pfout, 8 U. S. Miller v. Miller, 1 Meigs (Tenn.) (3 DaU.) 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690 ; 184. Munnerbyn v. Munnerbyn, 3 ' Foster v. Marshall, 32 N. H. (2 Brev. (S. C.) 2 ; • Fost.) 491 ; Miller v. Miller, 1 Meigs (Tenn.) Pemberton's Lessee ■!;. Hicks, 4 U. 484. S. (4 Dall.) 168 ; bk. 1 L. ed. Compare: French v. Rollins, 21 785 ; s.c. 1 Binn. (Pa.) 1. Me. (8 Shep.) 372 ; ' Pemberton's Lessee v. Hicks, 4 Koltenbrock v. Craoraft, 36 Ohio U. S. (4 Dall.) 168 ; bk. 1 L. ed. St. 584. 785. The common-law rule was that such ^ Kentucky Rev. Stat. 1871, p. 537, a conveyance would forfeit the § 1 ; tenant's estate. • Maine Rev. Stat. 1871, p. 758, S French V.Rollins, 31 Me. (8 Shep.) 15; > i- > o „373 : Massachusetts Gen. Stats., c. 108, Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio § 310, p. 538 ; oT^*'.^^otA Michigan Rev. Stats. 1882, §g 2 Inst. 309; 5770,5783: Chap. XVH. § 828.] CURTESY UNDER STATUTE. 667 others ;^ in some states curtesy is expressly abolished,^ and abrogated by implication in others ; * in some of the states curtesy is incidentally mentioned as existing/ while in others no mention is made of it at all ; ^ and in some of the states the husband's estate by the curtesy never existed.® Where the estate by the curtesj'' is expressly given by statute, it is sometimes simply declaratory of the common law, as in West Virginia ; " but it is more often expressly modified and made a differ- ent estate, as by requiring that birth of issue shall not Nebraska Comp. L. 1881, pp. 215, 355 ; New Hampshire Gen. L. 1878, pp. 435, 475 ; North Carohna Bat. Rev. 1873, pp. 530, 531, 592 ; . Ohio Rev. Stat. 1880, §§ 3853, 3198, 4176, 4177 ; Oregon Gen. L., c. 64, § 3, p. 788; Vermont Rev. L. 1880, §§ 3329, 2330; West Virginia Rev. Stat. 1879, pp. 20, 35, § 15, p. 556, §§17, 18. ' Colorado, where the wife may not leave away from lier husband more than one-half of her estate without his consent in writing. Colorado Gen. L., c. 64, § 4, p. 614. Florida, where the husband takes an heir's share. Thomp. Dig, Fla. L., div. II.,tit. V., c 1, Greorgia, where the wife leaves children. Ga. Code 1873, c. 3, art. 1, § 3448. 2 California Civil Code 1881, § 173 ; Florida Dig. 1881, p. 471 ; Illinois Rev. Stat. 1880, c. 41, § 1, p. 425 ; Indiana Rev. Stat. 1881, § 3482 ; Iowa Rev. Code 1880, i^ 2440 ; Shields v. Keys, 24 Iowa 298 ; Kansas Comp. L. 1881. §§ 21, 29 ; Minnesota Act 1875, c. 40, § 5 ; Stats. 1878, c. 46, § 3 ; Mississippi Rev. Code 1880, c. 42, 8 1170, p. 339 ; Nevada Comp. L. 1873, § 157. 8 As in Michigan, Tong v. Mar- vin, 14 Mich. 60. See : Brow v. Clarke, 44 Mich. 309. 4 Connecticut Gen. Stat. 1875, p. 392, § 28 ; Delaware Rev. Code 1874, p. 478, § 1, pp, 479, 484 ; Maryland Rev. Code 1878, p. 397, § 2, p. 412, §8 59, 60, p. 807, § 103. New Jersey Rev. Stat. 1877, p. 638, § 9, p. 639, § 14, p. 298, § 6, p. 1335, § 2 ; New York, 4 N. Y. Rev. Stats. (8th ed.), p. 3466, § 30 ; 1 Rev. Stat. Codes & L. 860, § 30 : Pennsylvania Pni- Dig. 1876, p. 1007, § 18, p. 1008, § 33 ; Rhode Island Pub. Stats. 1883, p. 424, § 14, p. 471, § 3, p. 190, g Q . Tennessee Rev. Stat. 1873, §§ 3486, 3363. ' As in Alabama, Arkansas, Colo- rado, Georgia, Minnesota, Mis- souri, and South Carolina. 6 In Louisiana the principles of the common law are not recog- nized, neither do the principles of the civil law of Rome fur- nish the basis of their jurispru- dence. They have a system of jurisprudence peculiar to them- selves, adopted by their stat- utes, which embody much of the civil law, some of the prin- ciples of the common law, and, in a few instances, the statutoiy provisions of other states. This system may be called the civil law of Louisiana, and is pecu- liar to that state. Parsons v. Bedford, 38 U. S. (3 Pet.) 433, 450 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 733, 738. In Texas the common law is de- clared by statute to be in force, but community of property pre- vails and curtesy is unknown. Tex. Rev. Stat. 1873, § 3128. ' See : Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. 455. 668 CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. [Book iH. be necessary to the vesting of the estate ; '■ by requiring that the wife shall leave children ; ^ by requiring that the wife shall die seized ; ^ by requiring that the wife shall die intestate ; * by providing for forfeiture of the estate for desertion ^ or bigamy ; ^ by providing that where the wife sha;ll die leaving" issue by a former husband, to whom the estate might descend, that such issue shall hold it discharged of the curtesy of the husband.'^ Where the husband's estate by the curtesy is expressly abolished by statute another estate is usually given in place of it, as in Illinois^ and lowa,^ where the husband has dower like the wife, or in Indiana, ^° where the hus- band takes an estate in fee-simple of one-third of the lands possessed by his wife at the time of her death ; and in Maine, where the husband takes a life estate in one- third of his wife's lands where she leaves issue, and a life estate in one-half of her lands where there is no issue." Sec. 829. Same — Construction of statutes. — We have already seen ^ that the common-law estate by the curtesy is not to be considered as abolished except by the express language of the Legislature. Where estate by the curt- esy is not expressly given or abolished by the statute it exists as a part of the common law,^^ in all those states ' Michigan, 3 Comp. L. 1857, c. 90, § 103, p. 807. § 30, p. 856 ; Comp. L. 1871, o. See : Ante, g 825. 151, J 30. oMich. Rev. Stat. 1882, 8 5770 ; See : Hill v. Chambers, 30 Mich. Miss. Code 1871, c. 23, §§ 1786, 422 ; 1787 ; Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93 ; Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776 ; Ohio Rev. Stat. 1880, § 4176, p. Neb. Comp. Stat. 1881. c. 23, § 1046; 29, p. 215; Oregon Gen. L. 1873, § 30, p. Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.c. 588. 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ; « Georgia Code 1873, c. 3, art. 1, Ohio Rev. Stat. 1880, § 2329 ; § 2484. Tilden v. Barker, 40 Ohio St. 411 ; » Ky. Rev. Stat., art. 4, c. 47, p. 22 ; Denney v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St. Miss. Code 1871, c. 33, §§ 1786, 576. 1^87 ; See : Hershizer v. Florence, 39 W. Va. Rev. Stat. 1879, § 15, p. Ohio St. 516, 528 ; 502 ; Wis. Rev. Stats. 1878, c. 98, 8 2180, Wis. Rev. Stat. 1878, c. 98, p. 628. § 2180, p. 638. 8 111. Rev. Stat. 1880, p. 435, § 1. « Ala. Code 1876, tit. 5, c. 1, » la. Rev. Stat. 1880, ^3440. § 3714 ; 10 lad. Rev. Stat. 188i', 8 3485. Wis. Rev. Stat. 1876, § 2180. " Me. Rev. Stat. 1871, tit. 9, c. 108, » Minn. Rev. Stat. 1878, p. 565. § 15, p. 758. See : Ante, § 823. 'a See : Ante, 8 713. •Md. Rev. Code 1878, art. 72, " Reaume v.Chambers,23Mo.86,51; Chap. XVII. § 830.] MARRIED WOMEN'S ACTS. 669 where the common law obtaics.^ The general tendency, however, even in the married women's acts,^ is not to aboUsh the estate by curtesy. In some of the states the estate is expressly preserved by statute, in others it is preserved by construction, while in others still the stat- utes have the effect to destroy curtesy initiate,^ without depriving the husband of his right to the estate by curt- esy consummate in his wife's lands after her death. Sec. 830. Same — Married women's acts. — The statutes passed by the various states for the more effectual pro- tection of married women, giving them exclusive control and ownership of their property, and providing that they shall hold the same to their sole and separate use, and not subject to the disposal of their husbands, nor be liable for their debts, do not affect the common-law rights of the husband as tenant by the curtesy.* These acts, while they may exclude the husband from any control over the wife's separate property during her life, leave to him the right of curtesy in so much of his wife's estates of inheritance as remains undisposed of by deed and unbequeathed.^ Where the statute gives the wife Denney v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St. Ross v. Adams, 28 N. J. L. (4 576, 578. Dutch.) 160 ; ' The common law never was in Johnson v. Cummings, 16 N. J. force in Louisiana (Pearson v. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 : s.c. 84 Am. Bedford, 38 U. S. (3 Pet.) 483, Dec. 143. 450 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 732, 738), and = Neelly v. Lancaster, 47 Ark. 175 ; it is questionable whether it s.c. 58 Am. Rep. 752 ; ever was in Iowa. Bozarth v. Largent, 138 111.95; O'FerraU v. Simplot, 4 Iowa 381, s.c. 21 N. E. Rep. 218 ; 391. Martin v. Robson, 65 111. 129 ; s.c. In Texas the common law is de- 16 Am. Rep. 578 ; clared to be in force, but com- Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226 ; mimity of property prevails. Freeman v. Dunn, 45 111. 61 ; See : Tek. Rev. Stat. 1873, § 3128. Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ; ■ See : Post, § 830. s.c. 93 Am. Deo. 193 ; ' Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. (5 Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 58 ; Dutch.) 289, 393 ; Luntz v. Greve, 103 Ind. 173 ; Ross V. Adams, 38 N. J. L. (4 Keyte v. Perry, 25 Mo. App. 394 ; Dutch.) 160 ; Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 530 ; Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ; E. Gr.) 204 ; Prall v. Smith, 31 N. J. L. (3 Vr.) Johnson t;. Cummings, 16 N. J. ^244; „„ „ t t. .. Eg. a C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.c. 84 Cushmg v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (4 Am Deo 142 ; Stew.) 697 ; Breeding v. Davis, 77 Va. 639 ; Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. Eq. (5 s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 740. Dutch.) 387 ; 'Naylor v. Field, 39 N. J. L. (5 Ross v. Adams, 23 N. J. L. (4 Dutch.) 287 ; Dutch.) 160 ; 670 EFFECT OF STATUTE. [Book III. power to alienate her property either by deed or by will, the husband has an estate by the curtesy subject to be defeated by such alienation.^ Sec. 831. Same— Effect of statute— On curtesy initiate.— A husband's estate by the curtesy does not become a vested interest until consummated by the death of the wife.^ Prior to that time his estate is merely initiate,^ and simply a contingent and not a vested estate/ con- sisting simply of a status, which is never a vested right,^ and for that reason may be modified or entirely destroyed by statute at any time before it becomes consummate by the death of the wife.^ But in the absence of any refer- Breeding v. Davis, 77 Va. 639 ; S.C. 46 Am. Rep. 740 ; KLagsley ». Smith, 14 Wis. 360. ' Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 791 ; Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (8 C. E. Gr.) 204, 208. ' Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn, 325, 330 ; Hill V. CJiambers, 30 Mich. 432, 427; Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 21, 24 ; Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 599, 606 ; Jones V. Davies, 7 Hurl. & N. 507, 508. ' Rice V. Hoffman, 85 Md. 344, 850. See : Ante, § 715. ■" Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 599, 606. = See : Levins v. Sleator, 2 Greene (Iowa) 604, 609 ; Reiff V. Horst, 55 Md. 42. " See : Duncan v. Terre Haute, 85 Ind. 108 ; Strong V. Clem, 13 Ind. 37, 41 ; s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 300 ; HiU .V. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422, 427: Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93, 95 ; Thurber v. Townsend, 22 N. Y. 517; Billings V. Baker, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 525, aff'd28 Barb. (N. Y.) 348, 346 : Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 21, 26 ; Denny v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St. 576, 580 ; Mellinger v. Bausman, 45 Pa. St. 533, 529 ; Sharpless v. West, 1 Grant (Pa.) 357, 360 ; Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (8 C. E. Gr.) 204 ; Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 373 ; s.c. 84 Am. Dec. 155 ' Bertie's v. Nunan, 93 N. Y. 153, 160 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep. 361 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y 280 ; Barnes v. Underwood, 47 N. Y. 851; Ransom v. Nichols, 22 N. Y. 110 ; Burke v. Valentine, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) N. S. 164 ; s.c. 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 413, aff'd by Court of Appeals, 6 Alb. L. J. 167 ; Vallance v. Bausch, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 638 : s.c. 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 633 ; 17 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 243 * 'v. Clark, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) V. Colvin, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) Clark 581 Smith 157 Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 366 Jaycox V. Collins, 36 How. Pr (N. Y.) 496, 497 ; Leach v. Leach, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 381, 382 ; Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 693 ; Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 31 ; s.c. 1 Id. 508 ; Beamish v. Hoyt, 3 Robt. (N. Y.) • 307 ; Morris v. Morris, 94 N. C. 618 ; Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N. C.) L. 161 ; Leggett V. McClelland, 39 Ohio St. 634 ; Bruner v. Briggs, 89 Ohio St. 478; Houck V. Ritter, 76 Pa. St. 380 ; Brone's Admr. v. Bockover, 84 Va. 434; s.c. 4 S. E. Rep. 745 ; Chap. XVII. § 831.1 CURTESY INITIATE. 671 ence specifically in the statute to existing rights or con- ditions, it will be applied only to those rights and con- ditions which arise after its enactment,^ because all stat- utes are presumptively prospective, and affect only inter- ests arising after their passage ; ^ but they are sometimes given retroactive force ; ^ such as statutes which go to form existing rights and are in furtherance of an existing remedy, by curing defects and by adding to existing obligations, when just, reasonable, and conducive to the good welfare, even though they may in some degree infringe upon vested rights.* Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360, 365. ' Porter v. Bowers, 55 Md. 313, 215. ' See : Aldridge v. Tuscumbia, C. & D Ry. Co., 2 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 199; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 307; Plumb V. Sawyer, 21 Comi 351, 355 • Re TuUer, 79 lU. 99 ; Noel V. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37, 55 ; Knowlton v. Redenbaugh, 40 Iowa 114 ; Cumberland v. Wasliington County Court, 10 Bush (Ky.) 564; Thornton v. McGrath, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 349 ; Rogers v. Greenbush, 58 Me. 390 ; Herbert v. Gray, 38 Md. 529 ; Williams v. Johnson, 30 Md. 500 ; Clark V. Baltimore, 29 Md. 377 ; Hopkins V. Frye, 3 Gill (Md.) 369, 365 ; Medford v. Learned, 16 Mass. 315; Harrison v. Metz, 17 Mich. 377 ; Garrett v. Beaumont, 24 Miss. 377; Brown v. Wilcox, 32 Miss. (14 Smed. & M.) 137 ; State V. Ferguson, 62 Mo. 77 ; State V. Auditor, 41 Mo. 13, 35 ; Colony V. Dublin, 33 N. H. 432 ; Baldwin v. Newark, 38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 158 ; Drake v. Gihnore, 53 N. Y. 389 ; Norris v. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 373 ; Bay V. Gage, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 447 • Sayre'^u. Wisner, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 661; Dash V. Von Kleeok, 7 John. (N. Y.) 477 ; Merwin v. Ballard, 66 N. C. 398 ; All hyer V. State, 10 Ohio St. 588 ; Haley v. City of Phlladelpliia, 68 Pa. St. 45: s.c. 8 Am. Rep.153 ; Price V. Mott, 52 Pa. St. 315 ; Tyson v. School Directors, 51 Pa. St. 9 -, Clawson v. Hutchinson, 11 S. C. 323; Graham v. Graham, 13 Rich. (S. C ) 377 ' Sturgis ■u.'HuII, 48 Vt. 302 ; State V. Atwood, 11 Wis. 433 ; Marsh v. Higgins, 9 Mon. & G. (C. B.) 551, 567 ; s.c. 67 Eng. C. L. 551 ; Moon V. Durden, 3 Exoh. 22, 41. 3 Curtis V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9 ; Town of DanviUe v. Pace, 35 Gratt. (Va.) 1; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 663. ^ Oriental Bank v. Freeze, 18 Me. 109; Rich V. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304 ; Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 188 ; Schenly v. Commonwealth, 36 Pa. St. 29 ; Bleakney v. Farmers & Mechan- ics' Bank, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 64; Tate V. Stoolitzfoos, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 35 ; Underwood v. LUly, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 101 ; BeU V. Perkins, Peck. (Tenn.) 361, 366 ; Townsend v. Townsend, Peck. (Tenn.) 1 ; Langdon v. Strong, 2 Vt. 334 ; Town of Danville v. Pace, 37 Gratt. (Va.) 1 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 663; Watson V. Mercer, 33 U. S. (8 Pet.) 88 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 876 ; Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U. S. (3 Pet.) 637 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 542. 672 WHO MAY HOLD BY CURTESY. [Book IH. Sec. 832. Same — Same — On curtesy consummate.— The estate of a husband by curtesy becomes consummate on the death of the wife, is a vested interest, and cannot be modified or taken away by statutory enactments. Such an estate is regarded as an estate acquired by descent, ^ and, Hke estates by descent, is to be determined by the law existing at the time of . the wife's death. Section V. — Who may be Tenants by the Cuetesy. Sec. 833. Tenants by the curtesy — Generally. Sec. 884. Same — ^Alienage. Sec. 835. Same — Same — Naturalization. Sec. 836. Same — Attainder of treason or felony. Section 833. Tenants by the curtesy— Generally. — At common-law, as a general rule, all persons are capable of holding freehold estates ; ^ the principal exception to this rule being the disability arising from alienage,^ and at- tainder of treason or felony.* As to who may be tenant by the curtesy, it is sufficient to observe that any one who may hold a freehold estate may acquire an estate by the curtesy. Sec. 834. Same— Alienage.— At common law an alien cannot take or hold an estate in lands by operation of law,^ although he may by act of the parties, or by pur- chase or devise,'' and hold it against all the world until 1 See : Watson t;. Watson, 13 Conn. ^ See : Apthorp v. Backus, Kirby 83, 86 ; (Conn.) 407 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. Eice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 850 ; 36 ; Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. 309, Judd v. Lawrence, 55 Mass. (1 311 ; s.c. 6 N. W. Eep. 679 ; Cush.) 581, 534 j Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, Slater v. Nason, 33 Mass. (15 790. Pick.) 345, 349 ; * See : Bancroft v. Consen, 95 Mass. Fox v. Southack, 13 Mass. 143 ; (13 Allen) 50 ; Montgomery v. Dorion, 7 ISI . H. Harmon v. James, 15 Miss. (7 475 ; Smed. & M.) Ill ; s.c. 45 Am. Jackson ex d. Smith v. Adams, 7 Dec. 390 ; Wend. (N. Y.) 367 ; Huss V. Stephens, 53 Pa. St. 383 ; Fairfax v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.- Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. S. (7 Cr.) 603 ; bk. 3 L. ed. St. 344 ; s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 474 ; Compare : Lumb v. Jenkins, 100 1 Bl. Com. 466 ; Mass. 537. 1 Co. Litt. a9th ed.) 3. « See : Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 s See : Ante, § 813 ; Mass. 561, 574 ; Post, § 834. Fox V. Southack, 13 Mass. 143 ; iSee: Ante, §§ 793, 837; Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 13 Post, g 836. N. Y. 376 ; ■ Chap. XVII. § 835.] NATURALIZATION. 673 office found. 1 Consequently, at common law, an alien cannot be' a tenant by the curtesy.^ The law will not do a useless or vain thing, ^ and therefore will not give to the husband an estate which he cannot hold.'* The rule of the common law has been changed by stfltute in most, if not all, the states. v Sec. 835. Same — Same — Naturalization.— The disability of alienage is removed by naturalization, because this makes the alien a citizen. But to enable an alien to hold lands by the curtesy the naturalization must be complete, because he does not become a citizen until actually or completely naturalized.^ We have already seen that where an alien husband makes the preliminary declara- tion of his intention to become a citizen before the death of his wife, and completes his naturalization after her death, that he is not entitled to an interest in her Do3 ex d. Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson, 34 U. S. fll Wheat.) 333; bk. 6 L. ed. 488; Orr V. Hodgson, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 453, 460 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 613, 615 ; Craig V. Radford, 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 594, 597 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 467; Craig V. Leslie, 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 563, 589 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 460, 466 ; Martin. Heir of Fairfax v. Hun- ter's Lessee, 14 U. S. (1 Wheat.) 304 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 97 ; ' Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 603, 630 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 453, 463 ; Knight V. Duplessis,,3 Ves. 360 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 3 ; PoweU on Dev. 315. See : Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561, 574 ; Judd V. Lawrence, 55 Mass. (1 Gush.) 531, 534 ; Waughi;. Riley, 49 Mass. (8 Met.) 390; Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 131, 134 ; Wilbur V. Tobey, 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 177. 179, 180 ; Fox V. Southack, 13 Mass. 142, 143; Storer v. Batson, 8 Mass. 431 ; Sheafife v. O'Neil, 1 Mass. 256 ; Goodrich v. Russell, 43 N. Y. 177 ; 43 Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 13 N. Y. 376 ; Jackson ex d. Smith v. Adams, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 867, 368 ; Doe ex d. Governeur's Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat.) 333 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 488 ; Craig V. Radford, 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.) 594 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 467 ; Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 602, 603 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 453 ; 2 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 54, 61. 5 Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 131; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280, 385 ; Copeland v. Sauls, 1 Jones (N. C.) L. 70 ; Reese v. Waters, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 145. See ; Ante, § 813. Compare : Mussey v. Pierre, 24 Me. 559 ; Doe ex d. Miller v. Rogers, 1 Car. & K. 390 ; s.c. 47 Eng. C. L. 390 ; Calvin's Case, 7 Co. 354. ' Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (30 Pick.) 131 134 ' Slater v. 'Nason, 33 Mass. (15 Pick.) 345, 349. ^Id. See : Ante, § 813. ' Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (30 Pick.) 131, 177. 674 FELONY AND TREASON. [Book III. land as a tenant by the curtesy.^ The reason for this is the fact that the naturalization does not relate back so as to remove the disability from the time of filing the preliminary declaration.^ Sec. 836. Same— Attainder of treason or felony.— At com- mon law, persons attainted of treason or felony cannot be tenants by the curtesy ; for, being extra legem positi, they are become incapable of deriving any benefit from the law ; and, by consequence, of this in particular, which intended to give the inheritance only to those who were capable of holding it during their lives. ^ The matter is regulated by statute in this country. Section VI. — ^What PKOPBiRTY Subject to Curtesy. Sec. 837. Ancient rule. Sec. 838. At common law. Sec. 839. In estates-tail. Sec. 840. Same — On failure of issue. Sec. 841. Same — In this country. Sec. 842. In separate estate — At common la\r. ^ Sec. 843. Same— Under statute. Sec. 844. In equitable estates of inheritance. Sec. 845. Same — Intention of grantor. Sec. 846. In estate of former husband. Sec. 847. In lands recovered. Sec. 848. In lands deed to which is taken in wife's name. Sec. 849. In lands of which wife seized by direct gift. Sec. 850. In lands conveyed to wife by husband. Sec. 851. In lands conveyed to trustee — By husband. Sec. 853. Same— By the wife. Sec. 853. Same— By third person. Sec. 854. Same— Same— Express exclusion of husband. Sec. 855. In lands held by guardian. Sec. 85G. In wild lands. Sec. 857. In lands cast by descent. Sec. 858. In lands devised in trust. Sec. 859. In lands of beneficiary under wiU. Sec. 860. In mortgaged estate. Sec. 861. In trust estate. Sec. 863. In fee with conditional limitation. Sec. 863. In fees determinable. ' ^ee : Ante % 813. 1 Cruise Eeal Prop. (4th ed.) 145, « Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) § 28. 3-D ^^l'J^^'_. See: ^nfe, §§ 792, 837. 3 Bro. Ab. Ciurtesy, 15 ; Chap. XVII. §§ 837, 838.] PROPERTY SUBJECT TO. 675 Sec. 864. In estate in remainder. Sec. 865. In estate in reversion. Sec. 866. In lands held in joint tenancy. Sec. 867. In estates in coparcenary. Sec. 868. In merged estates. Sec. 869. In money when. Sec. 870. In incorporeal hereditaments. Section 837. Ancient rule.— It appears from Glanville^ that the right to curtesy was originally confined to the maritagmm^ of the wife. But the right was afterwards extended, so that when Bracton wrote the right attached to all lands whereof the wife was seized, whether she acquired them by inheritance, or as a maritagium, or by donation,^ and Littleton's description of curtesy extends to all estates in fee-simple.* Sec. 838. At common law. -At common law, the husband was entitled to curtesy in all the real estate of which the wife died seized, whether such estate was separate estate or not,^ whether seized in fee-simple or fee-tail in posses- sion ;^ and this is the general rule in the United States.'^ In order that curtesy may attach, the estate of the wife must be a freehold of inheritance ; ^ but it applies to qual- ified as well as absolute estates in fee.^ The estate must also be an estate in possession, because there can be no curtesy in an estate in reversion expectant on a life inter- est or other estate of freehold. -"^ If a woman, tenant in ' Glanv,, lib. 7, c. 18. Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. ' As to maritagivm, see : Ante, § 455. 273. In Kentucky, a husband never act- ' Bract. 437b, 8a. ually seized of land of the wife, ■• 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, et seq. during coverture, has no in- = See : Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. terest whatever in it after her Va. 455. death. « Barker v. Barker, 3 Sim. 249 ; Petty v. MaUer, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 2 Bl. Com. 126 ; 591. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39a, et seq. ; ' MuUany v. MuUany, 4 N. J. Eq. Id. 40a, et seq. (3 H. W. Gr.) 16 ; s.c. 31 Am. ' See : Nesbitt v. Trindle, 64 Ind. Dec. 338 ; 183 ; Simmons v. Gooding, 5 Ired. (N. Matter of Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. C.) Eq. 838 ; (N. Y.) 59G ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. Sumner v. Partridge, 3 Atk. 47 ; 416 ; Mildway's Case, 6 Co. 40 ; Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St. Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147. 83 • " Paine's Case, 8 Co. 34 ; Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33. Beirne v. Beirne, 33 W. Va. 663 ; ''- 3 Bl. Cora. 137 ; s c 11 S. E. Rep. 46 : Watk. Desc. f4th ed.) Ill, 131. See : Post, % '888. 676 ESTATES-TAIL— FAILURE OF ISSUE. [BOOK III. tail after possibility of issue extinct, takes a husband, has issue, and the fee-simple descends upon her, the husband will be entitled to curtesy ; because, by the descent of the fee, the estate-tail after possibility was merged, and the wife became tenant in fee-simple executed.^ Sec. 839. In estates-tail.— Conditional fees^ were subject to curtesy before the statute De Donis,^ and when that statute converted them into estates-tail,* the husbands were allowed to be tenants by the curtesy in estates-tail also. Where lands were given, before the statute De Bonis, to a man and a woman, and the heirs of their bodies to be begotten, the course of descent was, in some degree, changed by their having issue ; for then the lands became descendible to all the heirs of the donee's body, and also liable to the curtesy of a second husband. To prevent this, it was enacted by the statute De Donis that where lands were given in this manner, a second husband should not be tenant by the curtesy.^ Sec. 840. Same— On failure of issue.— It was formerly doubted whether a man could be tenant by the curtesy of an estate-tail, after failure of issue capable of inheriting the estate, which in fact determined the estate-tail, and the donor's right to the reversion accrued ; but it is now well established that in a case of this kind the husband has an estate by the curtesy.^ Thus at common law, if lands were given to a woman and the heirs of her body, and she took a husband and had issue, and the issue died, and the wife then died without issue, whereby the inheritance of the land reverted to the donor, the estate of the wife ' Bro. Ab. Estate, 25. of his deceased wife, held by « See : Ante, bk. III., c. X., § 431, her in fee-taU. Giddings v. Cox, 31 Vt. 607. ' See : Ante, % 456. Littleton's description of curtesy * See : Ante, bk. III., c. XIII., § 453, is confined to women seized as e^ seg. heirs in special tail. There can = Paine's Case, 8 Co. 85b ; be no doubt, however, but that 2 Inst. 336. the husband of a woman donee In Vermont, since the passage of in special tail would be also the act of October 31, 1823, a entitled to curtesy. husband does not become ten- 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 146. ant by the curtesy of the land « 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 146. Chap. XVII. § 842.] SEPARATE ESTATE— COMMON LAW. 077 was determined by the failure of issue, and yet the hus- band was entitled to curtesy ; for that was tacitly implied in the gift. The estate by the curtesy was not derived merely out of the estate of the wife, but was given to the husband by the privilege and benefit of the law ; for, as soon as the husband had issue, his title became initiate, and could not afterwards be defeated by the death of the issue, which, being the act of God, ought not to turn to his prejudice.^ Sec. Sil. Same— In this country.— In this country estate by the curtesy is an incident so inseparably annexed to estates-tail that it cannot be restricted by any proviso or condition whatever, in those states where an estate-tail is still recognized,^ and it has not been otherwise provided by statute. The matter is now regulated by statute in most, if not all, of the states. Thus, in Vermont, there has been no curtesy in an estate-tail since the passage of the act of October 31, 1823, which, by expressly men- tioning curtesy in estates in fee-simple, excluded the ordinary common-law rule ; ^ and the fact that the stat- ute converts the estate-tail into a fee-simple in the hands of the issuing tail does not entitle the husband of the wife in tail to curtesy, because the change in the charac- ter of the estate does not take place during coverture, and while the wife still was seized.* Sec. 842. In separate estate— At common law.— At com- mon law the husband's curtesy is one of the legal inci- dents of the wife's estate of inheritance, and he will not be excluded from rights in property springing from the marital relation except by words that leave no doubt of the intention of the parties to deprive him of such rights,* and therefore the husband will be tenant by the curtesy UCruiseEealProp.(4thed.) 163,163; ^St. 208; Paine's Case, 8 Eep. 34 ; Ege v. Medlar 82 Pa. St 86 ; 1 Inst 30a. Stokes v. McKibben, 13 Pa. St. 'trnst^S^^^'"' Bate v. HeiskeU, 1 Coldw. 3 Giddings v'. Cox, 31 Vt. 607. (Tenn.) 6g ; ,^ „ ■ i 4 Wavnes iJ Bourn, 43 Vt. 686. Trazer v. Hightower, 12 Heisk. » Cu&v. Blake 30 N. J. Eq. (3 (Tenn.) 94 ; a+i^-^fisq- Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) T^n^Td rCTOKer, 80 N. Y. 15 ; 710 ; s.o. 31 Am. Eep. 660 ; Hardy^. Va^&ngen, 7 Ohio Burnet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 316. 678 SEPARATE ESTATE— STATUTE. [Book III. in his wife's separate estate, notwithstanding the fact that he is cut off from any participation in the rents and profits during coverture.^ Sec. 843. Same— Under statute.— Estate by curtesy in the separate estate of the wife remains in the husband, unim- paired by statutes for the better securing of property of married women, which declare that she shall hold the prop- erty to her sole and separate use, and that it shall not be subject to the disposal of her husband, nor be liable for his debts.^ ' Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Kv.) 138; Comer v. Chamberlain. 88 Mass. (6 Allen) 166 ; Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo. 325, affirmed 6 Mo. App. 549 ; Cushing V. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (8 Stew.) 689 ; Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.c. 84 Am. Dec. 143 ; ' Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa. St. 449 ; Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; Wightman v. Pettis, 39 Pa. St. 380, 383 ; ■ Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. 1. 388; Stovall V. Austin, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 700; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ; Steadman v. Pulling, 3 Atk. 433 ; De Hart v. Dean, 3 McA. 60 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 348. Compare : Post, § 873. The contrary doctrine, however, is held in some of the oases. Thus in Beecher v. Hicks, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 307, where land was conveyed to a married woman for her sole and separate use, and to her children, and she died leaving children, it was held that the husband took no estate of curtesy. In Haight v Hall, 74 Wis. 153 ; s.c. 43 N. W. Rep. 109 ; 8 L. R. A. 857, it was held that a deed to a mar- ried woman, '"to her sole and separate use and free from the interference or control of her said husband or any husband, and her heirs and assigns, to her and their only proper use and benefit forever," must be held to defeat a right to curtesy in the premises on the grantee's death, where by the statute of the state a married woman could hold real estate as if un- married ; since the restriction in the grant can have no force whatever given to it unless the intention was to exclude the estate by the curtesy. See, also : Post, g§ 878, 874. Words which simply create a separate estate in the wife during cov- erture, or which merely deprive the husband of any right to make the estate responsible for his debts, or to control it dur- ing coverture, will not be suffi- cient to deprive him of the right of curtesy. Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380 ; Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 31, 508 ; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ; Sayers v.Wall, 36 Gratt.(Va.)354. Same — Provisions that do not ex- clude. — Thus a deed to a mar- ried woman, habendum " to her, her heirs and assigns, to her and their sole use, benefit, and behoof," will not exclude the husband's curtesy. De Hart v. Dean, 2 McA. D. C. CO ; s.c. 1 S. & B. 369. And where a testator devises real estate to his daughters for their sole and separate use, to pass at their death directly to their children, the daughters' hus- bands are entitled to curtesy. Stovall V. Austin, 16 Lea (Tenn.) 700. ' Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq. Chap. XVII. § 844.] EQUITABLE ESTATES. 679 Sec. 844. In equitable estates of inheritance.— Originally curtesy could not be claimed in an estate of which the wife had a cestui que use ; but now a husband is entitled to curtesy in the wife's equitable estates of inheritance, if the requisites of such a title in legal estates existed.^ And this is true even in those equitable estates which are granted to the sole and separate use of the wife ^ where not dis- ■ (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.o. 84 Am. Dec. 143. See : Gushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 697 ; Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 273; s.c. 84 Am. Dec. 155 ; Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa. St. 449. A contrary opinion was held in the construction of a New York married women's statute in Billings V. Baker, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 348 ; but the decided weight of authority in that state is ad- verse to the decision in Billings V. Baker, supra, and in accord- ance with the views expressed in tbe text. Vallance v. Bausch, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 633 ; Clark V. Clark, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 581; Smith V. Colvin, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 157; Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 366. The Ijetter opinion is said in John- son V. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 : s.c. 84 Am. Deo. 142, to be that the estate remains in the husband unaf- fected by the statute. This is in accordance with the clearly expressed opinion of Mr. Jus- tice Vredenburgh, and seems to be the necessary result of the opinion of the chief justice in Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. (5 Dutch.) 287, and Ross v. Adams, 38 N. J. L. (4 Dutch.) 160. I Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 54 ; Dugan V. Gittings, 3 GiU (Md.) 138 ; s.c. 43 Am. Deo. 306 ; Houghton V. Hapgood, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 154 ; Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ; Rabb V. Griffin. 26 Miss. 597 ; Baker v. Nail, 59 Mo. 368 v Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo. 338; Cushing V. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 689 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill(N. Y.) 183 ; Dunscomb v. Dunscorab, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; s.o. 7 Am. Dec. 504; Forbes v. Smith, 5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 369 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 452 ; Sentill V. Robeson, 3 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 510 ; Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Greg. 874; s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 710 ; Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts (Pa.) 113 ; Shoemaker v. Walker, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 554 ; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I. 115; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 383; Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597 ; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ; Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 641 ; Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 503, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 241 ; Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Bro. C. C. 497, 499 ; Cooper V. Macdonald, L. R. Ch. Div. 288 ; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng. Rep. 581 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo. 325 ; s.c. 6 Mo. App. 549 ; Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 109 ; Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C. C. 138 ; Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 Vern. 586; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 81. < Sentill V. Robeson, 2 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 510 ; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ; Nightingale v. Hidden,7 R.I.115; Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 383. 680 INTENTION OF GRANTOR. [Book III. posed of by deed or by will ; ^ but the equitable estate must be a beveral one, or else held under a tenancy in common, and must not be one of which the wife was seized or pos- sessed jointly with any other person or persons.^ Actual possession of the estate, or the receipt of rents, issue, and profits, by the wife, or possession by her trustee for her benefit, is considered as such seisin of the equitable estate as is equivalent to legal seisin and sufficient to support the right of curtesy.^ The husband will not be entitled to curtesy in a mere equitable right ; * thus the husbaijd is not entitled to curtesy in the pre-emption rights of the wife in public lands of the United States.^ Sec. 845. Same— intention of grantor.— The husband will not be entitled to curtesy, however, in an equitable estate of the wife, where it is manifest from the deed of the grantor that it was the intention to exclude the husband from such equitable estate ; ° but it has been held that a husband is entitled to curtesy in lands conveyed to trustees Compare : Moore v. Webster, L. R. 23 Eq. 367 ; Appleton V. Rowley, L. R. 8 Eq. 139, and cases cited in note 2. ' Cooper V. Macdonald, L. R. 7 Ch. Div. 288; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng. Rep. 581. Compare : Post, § 878. ^ 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 183a. See: Post, §% 866,881. ' RawUngs v. Adams, 7 Md. 54 ; Houghton V. Hapgood, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 154 ; Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo. 238; Cushing V. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 689 ; Dunscombu. Dunscomb, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.)508 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 504; Forbes v. Smith, 5 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 369 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 433 ; SentUI V. Robeson, 2 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 510 ; Clepper v. Livergood, 5 "Watts (Pa.) 113 ; Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I. 115; TilUnghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 383; Carters. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 660 ; Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339 ; Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C. C. 138. ^ In estate in ectnity.— Thus it is said in Sentill v. Robeson, 3 Jones (N. C.) Eq. 510, that " a husband is entitled to curtesy in trust or other equitable estates of his wife. This means an express trust — one by the consent of the parties so as to give an estate in equity as distinguished from a right in equity." ' McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 455- 465. See : Post, § 879. * Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 111. 347 ; Pool V. Blakie, 53 lU. 495, 500 ; aark V. Clark, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 582 • Rigler tJ. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 361 ; Stokes V. McKibben, 13 Pa. St. 207; Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ; Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 716 ; Bennett v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 316. Chap. XVII. §§ 846-848.] IN LANDS RECOVERED. G81 for the wife's separate use by a deed expressly excluding her husband from any control.^ Sec. 846. In estate of former husband.— We have already seen ^ that where a wife dies leaving children by a de- ceased husband, also another husband, and children by him, surviving her, this husband shall take as tenant by the curtesy so much of the real estate left by the wife as may be inherited by the children begotten by him.^ Sec. 847. in lands recovered.— Where, by a decree of a court of equity, a deed from a woman to her affianced husband, which was procured by the latter through undue influence, is annulled after marriage, the husband's right to tenancy by curtesy re-attaches.* Where a husband and wife attempted to bar an estate-tail of the latter by process provided by statute, and the wife died before the transaction was properly completed, the consideration of the conveyance being merely nominal, it was held that, whether the act was a mere nullity, or whether an equi- table estate in fee resulted, the husband was entitled to his curtesy.^ Sec. 848. Inlands deed to which is taken in wife's name.— The husband will be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in lands of which the wife becomes seized during coverture by deed in her own name, and as her own property, either on purchase by her husband, or by a parent ; ^ be- cause such purchase is deemed prima facie, as inteaded to be a settlement or provision for the wife by the hus- band,'^ or as an advancement ® by the parent. ' Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. 453, 454 ; s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 733 ; (Pa ) 95 ; s.c.' 39 Am. Dec. 60. Beed v. Eeed, 52 N. Y. 650 ; » See • Ante § 756. Phillips v. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 413 ; ■" Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360 ; Borst v. Spelman, 4 N. Y. 384. Paiie's Case, 8 Co. 34b. ' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. r. Deale, 18 * Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Oreg. 374 ; Md. 26 ; s.o. 79 Am^ Dec. 673 ; s c 33 Am Rep. 710. Curtis v. Fox, 47 N. Y. 299. ^ Pierc; u Hakes,^23 Pa. St. (11 See : Groflf v. Eohrer, 35 Md. 337. Har ) 231 ^^^ • Mutual' Fire Ins. Co. v. Deale, 18 Reed i;. Keed 53 N. Y 651 ; Md. 36 : s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673 ; Phillips v. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 412 ; Curtis V Fox 47 N. Y. 299. Borst v. Spelman, 4 N. Y. 384. See : Schindel v. Schindel, 12 Md. « Mutual Fire Ins Co. v. Deale 18 108 121 ; s.o. lb. 294, 312 ; Md. 26 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673, Wright V. Wright, 2 Md. 429, 675. 682 LANDS CONVEYED TO WIFE. [Book III. Sec. 849. Inlands of which wife seized by direct gift.— A married woman may become seized of lands by direct gift as well as by purchase in her own name and as her own property, and in such lands the husband will be en- titled to an estate by the curtesy where all the requisites of such an estate exist.-' Sec. 850. In lands conveyed to wife by husband.— Where a husband conveys land to his wife without the interven- tion of a trustee, such conveyance not being in fraud of ex- isting creditors, will be valid in equity,^ and the husband will be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in such lands,^ even though the wife may never have been actually pos- sessed of the lands.* In Virginia, however, a contrary doctrine seems to prevail. Thus it is said in the case of Sayer v. Wall,^ that a conveyance from a husband to his wife, though invalid at law, is good in equity, and, being absolute, vests in her a separate estate, thereby defeating his right of curtesy. And it is said by the same court in the case of Dugger v. Dugger,^ that a separate estate created by the husband for his wife, whether directly or through a trustee, presumptively excludes the husband from tenancy by the curtesy.''' Sec. 861. In lands conveyed to trustee— By husband.— A husband wiU be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in lands which he has conveyed to a trustee for the sole and separate use and benefit of his wife and her heirs, ^ where See : Gilbert v. Gilbert, 3 Abb. Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill CN Y ) Dec. (N. Y.) 256 ; 183 ^ '' Farrell v. Lloyd, 69 Pa. St. 339 ; * Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N Y ) 183 Dennet v. Bennet, 10 Ch. Div. = 26 Gratt. (Va.) 354 474 ; s.c. 27 Moak's Eng. Rep. ■> 84 Va. 130 ; s.c. 4 S. E. Eep. 171. a-i ' <.-u o- , ., „ T. ''&ee: Irvine v. Greever, 33 Gratt. Sidmouth V. Sidmoutli, 3 Beav. (Va.) 419 ; ,447; „ ^ „ 3 Miner's Inst. 353(318). In^re De Verne, 3 DeG. J. & S. Also : Eigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. ' '^'^M^^^?'''^ ^P^i- '"■ ^^^^^' 1^ ' ^ee": Soltau v. Soltau, 93 Mo. 307; Md. 36 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673, s.c. 6 S. W. Eep. 95 ; 13 West. o , ■ ■. , „ , . , Rep. 115 ; Schmdelv.Schmdel 13Md. 108 Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo. 1^1 ; s.c. lb. 394, 313 ; 255 off'a- so fi Mn Ar.r. ^/LQ ■ Wright.. Wright 3Md.453; s.c. Cush^f.^ BlakS N^^j.' Eq 56 Am. Dec. 733. (3 Stew.) 399 ; ^ See : Sayer v. Wall, 26 Gratt. (Va.) Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86 • 3 RobL%. Chapman. 59 N. H. 41 ; "'"(^enn.Tef ^"°"''' '' ^''''' CHAP. XVII. § 853.] LANDS CONVEYED TO TRUSTEE. 683' the conveyance contains a power (1) in the wife of appoint- ment, or to dispose of the property by deed or will, and she dies without exercising such power ; ^ or (2) in the trustee to permit the wife, her heirs and assigns, to have the occupation, possession, and enjoyment of the property, and to receive the rents.^ In Pennsylvania ^ and Vir- ginia,* however, a husband who has conveyed land to another in trust for his wife is not entitled, on her death, to a tenancy by the curtesy in the trust estate. Sec. 852. Same— By the wife.— Where a wife, in a deed by her and her husband, conveys her real estate to a trustee, reserving for her benefit the rents and profits of her estate to her sole and separate use during her life, this does not amount to an expression of an intent on her part to exclude her husband ^ from curtesy therein at her death.® Sec. 853. Same— By third party.— Where lands are con- veyed by a third person to a trustee for the sole and Conveyance in contemplation of mar- riage. — In the case of Cushing V. Blake, 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 399, a man, in contemplation of marriage, conveyed lands to B, in trust, for the sole and separ- ate benefit of his intended wife ; and, upon the further trust, to convey to such persons as she might, during her life, appoint, either by deed or will ; and, upon failure thereof, to her heirs at law forever. The hus- band, together with one child of the marriage, survived his wife, who died without appoint- ment. The court held that the estate of the wife was an equi- table f ee-simple,in which A was entitled to curtesy. ' Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 641; Frazerw. Hightower, IS Heisk. (Tenn.) 94. 8 Rigler v. Cloud. 14 Pa. St. 361. '' Duggerw. Dugger, 84 Va. 130 ; s.c. 4 S. E. Rep. 171 ; Sawyer v. Wall, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 354. 5 See : Ante, § 845. " Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I. 383. ' Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ; Soltau V. Soltau, 93 Mo. 307 ; s.c. 6 S. W. Rep. 95 ; 12 West. Rep. 115; Trommel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo. 255, afif'g 6 Mo. App. 549 ; Cushing V. Blake, 29 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 399 ; Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 641 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408. See : Clark v. Clark, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 582 ; Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 60. By decree in chancery. — In the case of Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 641, the wife derived her equitable estate with the power to dispose thereof from a decree of the Court of Chan- cery. In the case of Soltau v. Soltau, 93 Mo. 307 ; s.c. 6 S. W. Rep. 95 ; 12 West. Rep. 115, a husband conveyed to a trustee for the use of his wife, and the wife devised the land to her children, the court held that the husband was entitled to curtesy in the estate. 684 EXCLUSION OF HUSBAND. [BOOK III. separate use of a married woman and her heirs, her hus- band will, on surviving her, and the other requisites of curtesy existing,^ be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in such lands, in the same manner as if the estate were a legal one,^ because in this respect equity follows the law.^ But the right of the husband to curtesy in the equitable estate of inheritance of his wife after her death will depend largely upon the wording of the instrument creating the estate, and the intention of the parties exe- cuting the same. The trust itself only requires that the husband should be excluded from control or interference during the lifetime of the wife, and to deprive him of his estate by curtesy there must be a manifest intention on the part of the person settling the estate that he shall be excluded from all interest whatsoever.* Sec. 854:. Same— Same— Express exclusion of husband.— Where lands are devised or deeded to the wife for her separate and exclusive use, with a clear and distinct ex- pression that the husband is not to have a life estate or other interest, but the same to be for the wife and her heirs, a court of chancery will bar the husband of his curtesy.^ Lord Habdwicke,- in the case of Hearlev . Green- ' See : Ante, §§ 718-760. Moore v. Webster, L. E. 8 Eq. ^ Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 139. 183 ; But it may now be regarded as Robert v. Chapman, 59 N. H. 41 ; settled in England that where Ege V. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86 ; a married woman has an equi- Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 E. I. table estate of inheritance to her 383 ; separate use, and does not dis- Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 E. I. pose of it by will or deed, her 115- husband will be entitled to curt- In English decisions there is a con- esy. flict of opinion as to the hus- See : Cooper v. Macdonald, 7 Ch. band's right to curtesy in an Div. 288 ; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng. estate belonging to the wife for Eep. 581. her separate use. ^ See : Eobinson v. Codman, 1 See : Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. Sumn. C. C. 121, 128. 695, 715, 716 ; s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. * Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408. 398 ; 5 Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. Eoberts v. Dixwell, 1 Atk. 607 ; (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Eeo. 60 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. Ch. FoUett V. Tyrer, 14 Sim. 125 ; 245 ; Eager v. Furnivall, 17 Ch. Div. Bennet v. Davis, 2 Pr. Wms. 316 ; 115 ; Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 716 ; Cooper V. Macdonald, 7 Ch. Div. s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. 298. 288 ; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng. Rep. See : Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 581 ; 89 ; Appleton V. Rowley, L. R. 8 Eq. Page's Estate, 76 Pa. St. 87 ; 139 ; Johnson v. Fi-itz, 44 Pa. St. 449 ; Chap. XVII. §§ 855, 856.] IN WILD LANDS. 085 back/ puts the reason for this rule on two grounds : (1) want of seisin in the wife, or rather in the husband ; and (2) on the intention of the devisor. He observes that to make the husband tenant by the curtesy, the wife must have the inheritance, and there must be Hkewise a seisin in deed in the wife during coverture. It was true she had the inheritance, but then the father, whose estate it was, has made the daughter a feme sole, and has given the profits to her separate use ; therefore, what seisin, he asks, could the husband have during the coverture ? He could neither come at the possession nor the profit. In the subsequent case of Morgan v. Morgan,^ Hearle v. Greenback ^ is much shaken if not overruled as to the first ground, as to seisin, taken by Lord Hardwicke. It is thought to be in conflict with Eoberts v. Dixwell,* where the same judge said that a devise to her separate use would not bar the husband, because there was a sort of seisin in the wife ; and in Pitt v. Jackson,® where it seems to have been held that the receipt of rents and profits is a sufficient seisin in the wife ; and also in De Grey v. Richardson,^ where it would appear as if no seisin in the wife is necessary to entitle the husband to be tenant by the curtesy.^ Sec. 855. in lands held by guardian.— The Supreme Court of Kentucky have held, in the case of Phillips V. Phillips,* that a husband is entitled to curtesy in the land of his wife, held by her mother as her guardian to her use. Sec. 856. In wild lands.— The other necessary incidents Dubs V. Dubs, 33 Pa. St. 149 ; husband ; for what seisin could Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 363. the husband have, as the court • 3 Atlr. 716 ; s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. 298. say, during the coverture, when 2 5 Madd Ch. 345. ^^ could come at neither the 3 3 Atk. 716 ; s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. 398. possession nor the profits, for 4 ^ ^tk! 606. ^^^ husband cannot be tenant " 3 Bro' Ch. 51. ^J ^^^ curtesy, unless he can 6 3 ji^^]j' 409. ' show seisin in himself in right ' It may be' observed that Eoberts of his wife. V Dixwell is but a dictum, See : Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts whereas in Hearle v. Greenback & S. (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. the point is expressly ruled and 60. in the latter case it is put not « 3 Duv. (Ky.) 549. on seisin of the wife but of the 686 LANDS CAST BY DESCENT. [Book III. existing,^ a husband is entitled to an estate by the curtesy in wild, waste, and uncultivated lands, '^ of which the wife dies seized in law, and which are not held adversely to her,^ she being deemed seized in fact so as to entitle the husband to his rights ; * for the right of possession of un- cultivated land draws to it the possession where the land is not held adversely, and is a sufficient seisin to support the husband's right to curtesy.^ Sec. 857. in lands east by descent.— A husband is entitled to an interest, as tenant by the curtesy, in real estate that descended to his wife during coverture. ® Thus w here upon the death of an intestate, the title to his land becomes vested in his only daughter and heir, subject to the dower of his widow, which dower is never assigned to her, if such daughter subsequently marries and has a child, the widow's quarantine right will not prevent the husband of such daughter, upon her death, from taking an estate by the curtesy.'^ Sec. 858. In lands devised in trust.— In some of the states ' See : Ante, 8 718, et seq. mortgaged the property, a levy ' See : Ante, § 743. was made on his life estate in 'Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; it, and a sequestrator appointed, B.C. 48 Am. Deo. 76 ; who paid one-third of the rents Malone V. McLaurin,40Miss. 161 ; and profits to the widow. The B.C. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ; defendant's wife did not eur- McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 vive the widow. The court Humph. (Tenn.) 267; s.c. 39 held that the defendant was not Am. Dec. 165. entitled to curtesy. * Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; In the Matter of Cifegier, an in- s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76. fant, reported in 1 Barb. Ch. ^ Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ; (N. Y.) 598 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320. 416, A died intestate, leaving "Griswold v. Penniman, 2 Com. real estate, and a widow en- 564 ; titled to dower therein, and five Mettler v. MiUer, 129 111. 630 ; s.c. sons and one daughter, his only 23 N. W. Eep. 529 ; heirs at law, and in the lifetime Proctor V. Newhall, 17 Mass. of A's widow, B, one of the SI ; sons, died, leaving a widow and Eabb V. Griffin, 26 Miss. 579 ; infant child, and C, the daugh- Matter of Cregier, 1 Barb. Ch. ter, died, leaving a husband (N. Y.) 598; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. and one infant child by him. ^^416 ; The court held that A's widow Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305 ; was entitled to dower in the Hyde v. Barney, 17 Vt. 380 ; s.c. whole estate, and that B's 44 Am. Dec. 385. widow was entitled to dower. In the case of Hitner v. Ege, 33 and C's husband to curtesy, in Pa. St. 305, the wife of the de- only one-sixth each of the re- fendant was heir in fee to real maining two-thirds. estate subject to the dower of ' Mettler v. Miller, 139 111. 630 ; s.c. her mother. The defendant 33 N. E. Rep. 539. Chap. XVII. § 859.] LANDS DEVISED IN TRUST. 68Y the husband is entitled to curtesy in the wife's trust es- tate.i Thus in Payne v. Payne,^ a testatrix devised lands in trust to the use of her daughter, to her separate use, to be disposed of as she might think proper ; and after the death of her daughter's husband, A directed that the trust should terminate, and the daughter's title become absolute. The daughter died before her husband, leaving three children ; and it was held that the husband was tenant by the curtesy of the devised premises, whether the trust was determined or not by the death of the bene- ficiary. Sec. 859. In lands ofbeneflciary under will.— Where lands are devised to a feme covert in fee, the testator cannot de- prive her husband of his estate by the curtesy by any words of restraint or limitation in his will ; ^ and this is true even where lands are devised in trust, to be held for the separate use of a woman free from the control of any future husband, and without the power of alienation, or of anticipation of the income.* And where the wife holds lands as beneficiary under a will, with power of appoint- ment, the trust to terminate upon the husband's death, he will be tenant by the curtesy, if he survives her, and ' Others hold that he is not entitled estate to his daughter, " to her, to curtesy in an estate devised her heirs and assigns, forever," to the vpLfe's sole and separate but if she should die without use. issue, his whole estate was to be See : McCuUoch v. Vallentine, 24 sold by his executors, and the Neb. 215 ; s.c. 38 N. W. Rep. money arising therefrom, after 854 ; his widow's decease, to be Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. equally divided among liis (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 60. brothers' and sisters' sons. The Compare: Post, bk. III., c. daughter married, and had XVII., section VII. issue that died during her life. ' 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 188. Her husband was held entitled ' Mullany v. Mullany, 4 N. J. Eq. to her estate as tenant by the (8 H. W. Gr.) 8 ; s.c. 31 Am. curtesy. Dec. 238. Buchanan v. Sheffer, 2 Yeates See : Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. 374. gt. 82 ; Under a similar state of facts Dubs V. bubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; same doctrine was held in Buchanan v. Shefifer, 2 Yeates Crumley v. Deake, 8 Baxt. (Pa ) 374 • (Tenn.) 361. Crumley v. Deake, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) * Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149. 3gl . See : Burke v. Valentine, 53 Barb. Bierne v. Bierne, 38 W. Va. 663 ; (N. Y.) 417 ; s.c. 11 S. E. Rep. 46. Buohanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St. Thus where a testator devised his 82. 688 IN MORTGAGED ESTATE. [Book III. she has made no appointment ; ^ but if she exercises the power of appointment, the husband is barred of his right to curtesy.^ Sec. 860. In mortgaged estate.— The interest of the mort- gagor in the mortgaged premises being an estate of in- heritance which may be devised or granted,^ and the mort- gagor being merely a security for the payment of the debt,* that is, being nothing more than a lien on the prop- erty, the estate in the premises is in no way affected by the existence of the mortgage before actual entry or fore- closure ; ^ and until that time, as to all the world except the mortgagee and those persons claiming under him, the mortgagor retains the freehold interest which existed prior to the execution of the mortgage, ''and consequently ' Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138. But it is said by the Supreme Court of North CaroUna in the case of Grove v. Trueblood, 96 N. C. 495 ; s.c. 1 S. E. Rep. 918, that an estate settled' on a, feme covert for life, with a power of appointment at her death in fee, does not give her such an estate as will entitle the husband if she fails to appoint. ' Pool V. Blakie, 53 111. 495, 500 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 395 ; Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. In the case of Stewart v. Ross, supra, it is said that " the in- terest of the wife must be such that the husband may have seis- in in her right (Bacon Abr. , title Curtesy). If there be an outstanding particular freehold estate which does not fall into the inheritance during covert- ure, there is not such a seisin and right of immediate posses- sion as will support the estate of curtesy. Redus v. Hayden, 43 Miss 614, 633, 636 ; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 163." ^ Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10 Conn. 243 ; s.c. 26 Am. Dec. 391; Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. Ill ; Wliite V. Whitney, 44 Mass. (8 Met.) 81 ; Hitchcock V. Harrington, 6 John. (N. Y.) 290, 295 : s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 229, 331. See : Mills v. Van Voorhis, 2 N. Y. 416 ; Roosevelt v. Fulton, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 71, 78 ; Wilson V. Troup, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 195, 231 : Astor V. Hoyt, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 608, 616 ; Lane v. Shears, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 433, 437. ^ See : Wiltsie on Mortg. Forec. (3d ed.), § 836. * White t).Rittenmeyer,80 Iowa 268; Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 843. See : Middletown Savings Bank V. Bates, 11 Conn. 519, 523 ; Johnson v. Watson, 87 lU. 535 ; Hancock i>. Carlton, 7^ Mass. (6 Gray) 39 ; Fay V. Cheney, 31 Mass. (14 Pick.) 899 ; Lund V. Lund, 1 N. H. 39 ; Shields v. Loyear, 34 N. J. L. (5 Vr.) 496 ; Breese v. Bangs, 3 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 486 ; Hemphill v. Ross, 66 N. C. 477 ; Waterman v. Matteson, 4 R. I. 539, 545 ; Hagar v. Brainerd, 44 Vt. 394 ; Wood V. Trask, 7 Wis. 566 ; Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 36 U. S. (1 Pet.) 386 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 189. ' Cooper V. Davis, 15 Conn. 556 ; Clark V. Beach, 6 Conn. 143 ; Brown v. Snell, 6 Fla. 741 ; Farnsworth v. City of Boston, 126 Mass. 3, 4 ; Chap. XVII. §§ 861, 862.] IN TRUST ESTATE. 689 the estate will be subject to curtesy in the husband or dower in the wife.^ It will be otherwise with the hus- band of a mortgagee in fee, unless the equity of redemp- tion has been barred by time.^ Sec. 861. Intrust estate.— By the common law, the hus- band is entitled to curtesy in the trust estate of his wife, in the same manner as he would be if it were a legal es- tate.^ In some of the states, however, there is no tenancy by the curtesy in an estate held in trust for the benefit of a married woman as if she were a feme sole, and so that the same shall not be in the power, or subject to the debt, contract, or engagements of her husband, with the remainder to her heirs or appointees.* Where the legal estate is held by the wife as trustee, it will not be sub- ject to curtesy.^ Sec. 862. In fees with conditional limitation.— The hus- band is entitled to an estate by the curtesy in an estate in fee that is subject to a conditional limitation,® even Bradley v. Fuller, 40 Mass. (23 Pick.) 1 : Orr V. Hadley, 36 N. H. 570, 578 ; Brj'an v. Butts, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 503, 505 ; Childs V. Childs, 10 Ohio St. 343 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 513 ; Asay V. Hoover, 5 Pa. St. 21 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 713 ; Doe ex d. Lyster v. Gold win, 2 Ad. & E. N. S. 143 ; s.c. 43 Eng. C. L. 610 ; Beamish v. Overseers, 24 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 7 ; s.c. 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 485. > Clark V. Beach, 6 Conn. 143 ; Groton v. Roxborough, 6 Mass. 50; Alexander v. Warrand, 17 Mo. 328; Coles V. Coles, 15 John. (N. Y.) 819; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 231; Titus V. Nelson, 5 John. Ch. (N.Y.) 453; Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Madd. 147. •> Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. Wms. 334; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33 ; 7 Vin. Abr. 156, pi. 23. 8 Phillips V. Worford, 3 Duv. (Ky.) 549; 44 Houghton V. Hapgood, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 154 ; Rabb V. Griffin, 36 Miss. 579 ; Sentill V. Robinson, 2 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 510 ; Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 503, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239, 241 ; Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C. C. 128 ; Casborne v. Inglis, 1 Atk. 603 ; s.c. 3 Eq. Cor. Abr. 728 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. "Wms. 229, 234 ; Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 108 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39a, note 165 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 30, 31. ■■ Stokes «. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. 367. 5 Welch V. Chandler, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 420, 431 ; Chew r. Commissioners of South- wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160. « Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Webb V. Lexington First Colored Baptist Church (Ky.), 13 S. W. Rep. 362 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L. Rep. 936; Young V. Langbein, 14 N. Y. Super. Ct. 151 ; Thornton v. Krepp,37Pa.St. 391 ; 690 CONDITIONAL LIMITATION. [Book III. after the condition divesting tlie estate has happened.^ Thus where a woman is given, by will, an absolute estate in land, subject only to be defeated upon her dying with- out leaving issue or descendants, her husband is entitled to curtesy upon her death if a child has been born to them.^ It has been said that an estate by the curtesy attaches to an equitable conditional fee as in other estates of the wife, but she must have been seized, and it must appear that the instrument creating her estate does not clearly indi- cate an intention to exclude the husband's estate of curtesy.^ SbO. 863- In fees determinable.— The question as to the right, of the husband to curtesy in the estate of his wife as determined by limitation, or by an executory devise, is one which has given rise to considerable discussion,* and Odom V. Beverly, 32 S. C. 107 ; s.c. 10 S. E. Rep. 835. See : Hatfield v. Sneden, 64 N. Y. 280, 285 ; Grout V. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 554, aff'd 2 Den. (N. Y.) 386 ; Evans v. Evans, 9 Pa. St. 190 ; Wright V. Herron, 6 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 146 ; Moody V. King. 2 Bing. 447 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 475 ; Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652 ; Taliaferro v. BurweU, 4 CaU (Va.) 321; Smith V. Spencer, 5 DeG. M. & G. 631 ; 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, But- ler's note 170 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33. Compare : Weller v. Weller, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 588, 589 ; Doe r. Hutton, 3 Bos. & P. 653. South CaroUna doctrine. — It was questioned in the case of Wright V. Herron, 6 Rich. (8. C.) Eq. 406, whether a husband is en- titled to hold, as tenant by the curtesy, land in which his wife was seized of a fee conditional ; but in the recent case of Odom V. Beverly, 32 S. C. 107 ; s.c. 10 S. E. Rep. 835, the court say that a grant of land to a daugh- ter for life, and after her death to the heirs of her body, creates a conditional fee in the daugh- ter ; and after her death, leav- ing children, her husband is en- titled to hold the land as tenant by the curtesy. ' See ; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Thornton v. Krepp, 37 Pa. St. 391 ; Crumley V. Deake, 8Baxt. (Tenn.) 361. Thus where there was a devise to three sisters, A, B, and C, and the will contained a provision that in case of the death of any one without leaving issue, her share should go to the others, and C married and had a child which died before its mother, the court held that after C's death her husband was entitled to his curtesy. Crumley v. Deake, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 361. ' Webb V. Lexington First Colored Bap. Church (Ky.), 13 S. W. Rep. 362 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L. Rep. 926; Odom V. Beverly, 32 S. C. 107 ; s.c. 10 S. E. Rep. 835. » Withers v. Jenkms, 14 S. C. 597. * Siscossion and criticism. — It is said in Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280, 284, that this question " has been the subject of elaborate discussions in the text-books, and of criticism upon the case of Buckworth v. Thirkell, de- cided by Lord Mausfield, and reported in 4 Dug. 323 ; s.c. 3 Bos. & P. 625, note ; Collect. Chap. XVn. § 863.]. DETEEMINABLE FEB. 691 on which the courts are divided. It has been laid down as a general proposition that " any circumstances which would have defeated or determined the estate of the wife, if living, will, of course, put an end to the estate by the curtesy." ^ The prevailing rule in this country is that if the estate of the wife is an estate of inheritance upon a condition or upon limitation, determinable thereby, estates which take effect and are deterrained according to the rules of the common law, and limitations over, which take effect as common-law estates, operate to defeat the husband's right of curtesy.^ If, however, the estate be in fee determinable upon the happening of some future event, with the limitation over, by way of executory de- vise or shifting use, the happening of the contingency will not affect the husband's right to curtesy.^ Jur. 332, and upon that of Moody V. King, 6 Bing. 447 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 475, which fully upholds it after it had been spoken of as disappropriation by Lord Alvanlet, in Doe v. Hutton, 3 Bos. & P. 643, 651. The discussion has been so full and complete that it seems im- possible to throw any additional fight upon the views and vari- ous arguments which have been adduced upon it. * * * It may be properly added that the strong objection proposed to this doctrine by its critics is to the consequence which they deem unreasonable, that an es- tate determined according to the terms of its creation should by the incident of curtesy or dower be prolonged. To this, it seems to me a fair and com- plete answer to say, as Lord Coke says (in Paine's Case, Coke R., part VIII., Eraser's ed., p. 312, marg. 36a), in an- swer to a similar difficulty as to curtesy after an estate-tail de- termined by the death of the wife tenant in tail and of her issue, ' the husband's estate shall continue, for it is not de- rived merely out of the estate of the wife, but is created by law,' 'by the privilege and benefit of the law tacite an- nexed to the gift.' This pos- sible continuance of dower or curtesy as an incident of the estate created may well be deemed to have been in the con- templation of the testatrix, and is not an unreasonable or un- natural provision for the possi- ble husband or wife of one clothed with a fee-simple not defeasible, except upon death without cliildren living. The only authority in this state in conflict with this conclusion is a decision at special term in Weller v. Weller, 28 Barb. N. Y. 588 , in a case of dower, which was put upon the ground of the criticism in Park on Dower, upon Lord Mansfield's de- cision." ' 1 Atk. Conv. 255. •■' Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y, 380, 385. ■' Northcut V. Whipp, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 65 ; Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380, 885; Grout V. Townsend, 2 HiU (N. Y.) 554 ; Thornton v. Knapp, 37 Pa. St. 391; Evans v. Evans. 9 Pa. St. 190 ; Wright V. Herron, 6 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 406 ; Moody V. King, 2 Bing. 447 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 475 ; Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & P. 652, note ; 692 ESTATE IN REMAINDER. [Book III. Sec. 864. In estate in remainder.— There being no curt- esy in the wife's remainder expectant upon an estate of freehold/ the husband of a woman entitled to a remainder is not so seized during the life of the tenant for life as to make him tenant by the curtesy initiate,^ and will not be entitled to curtesy consummate where the wife dies before the expiration of the life estate, and never had right to the possession,^ because there can be no seisin in deed or in law of a vested remainder limited upon a precedent freehold estate,* but where a life estate and the immediate reversion meet in the same person, the particular or less estate is merged in the greater,^ and if such person be a feme covert, the husband will be entitled to an estate as tenant by the curtesy.® Thus where the tenant of a par- ticular estate surrenders to the owner of a vested re- mainder in tail, who is a married woman, the latter there- Smith V. Spencer, 6 DeG. M. & G. 631 ; 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, Butler's note 170 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33. See : Ante, § 862. ' See : Ellingsworth v. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 643 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74; s.c. 15 Am. Deo. 433, 437 ; Adaiv V. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 183 ; Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C. 363; De Gray v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 469: Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 403. ■ Planters' Bank of Tennessee v. Davis, 31 Ala. 636 ; Mackey v. Proctor, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 433 ; Stewart v. Barclay, 3 Bush (Ky.) 550; Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass. (8 Allen) 425 ; Malone v. MoLaurin, 40 Miss. 160, 161 ; Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 388 ; Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 49 ; Prater v. Hoorer, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 544. ' Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala. 636; Todd V. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 178 ; s.c. 7 L. R. A. 693 ; Mackey v. Proctor, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 433 ; Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 176 ; Webster v. Ellsworth, 147 Mass. 602; Brooks V. Everett, 95 Mass. (13 Allen) 457 ; Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass. (8 Allen) 425; Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 633 ; Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ; Fiskh 11. Eastman, 5 N. H. 340 ; Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 388; Adair 183; Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. T. R ) 372 " Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543 ; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 401; Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 500, 506 ; Re Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 598. ' James v. Morey, 3 Cow. (N. 246 ; s.o. 14 Am. Dec. 475 ; Roberts v. Jackson, 1 Wend. Y.) 484 ; 2 Bl. Com. 177. « Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. 388; Pierce v. Hakes, 23 Pa. St. Har.) 331. Lott, 8 Hill (N. Y.) & E. (7 Y.) (N. Y.) Chap. XVII. g 866.] REVERSION AND JOINT TENANCY. 693 by gains such an estate as will entitle her husband to curtesy, even against the next remainderman. Sec. 865. in estate in reversion.— Where the wife has a reversionary interest merely, expectant upon an estate for life,^ this will not be sufficient to entitle the husband to an estate by the curtesy, ^ unless the estate for life is a merely equitable interest,^ or the prior freehold deter- mines during coverture ; * and this is true even though the husband is the tenant of the prior freehold,^ but seisin in law of a reversion by the wife during coverture gives the husband curtesy in the lands.^ Sec. 866. In lands held injoint tenancy.— At common law, to entitle the husband to curtesy, the estate of the wife, whether legal or equitable, must be a legal one, and must not be one of which the wife was seized or possessed jointly with any other person or persons.^ But where the husband and wife hold premises jointly, on the death of the wife the husband becomes a tenant by the curtesy.^ ' An outstanding term of years will not have that effect. Wier V. Humphries, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 264, 379. And this is true even if the term be of great length. Lessee of Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170. See : De Gray v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 436. Eeason for the rale. — The reason for this is because the termor is not properly possessed of the land but of the term, the pos- session of tenant of the land still remaining in the wife. Lessee of Lowiy v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170: 3 Bl. Com. 144. ' Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 75 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ; Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C. 263. ' Adair v. Lott. 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182. •• Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala. 626; „^ , Adams v. Logan, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 175 ' Shores v. Carley, 80 Mass. (8 Allen) 436; Maloner. McLaurin,40Miss. 101 ; Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ; Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ; Hitner t'. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305 ; Clure V. Commissioners, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160 ; Doe V. Scuddamore, 3 Bos. & P. 394; Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7 T. R.) 273 ; Plunket V. Holmes, 1 Lev. 11. ' See : Planters' Bank v. Davis, 81 Ala. 633 ; Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass.(8 AUfen) 426; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 163 ; Orford v. Benton, 38 N. H. 395 ; Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543 ; Robertson v. Stevens, 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 347 ; Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305 ; Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7 qi T? \ 272 • Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C. 363. « McKee v. Cuttle, 6 Mo. App. 416. ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a, 37b ; 3 Id. 183a ; Litt. §45. 8 Berry v. Hall (Ky.), 118 W. Rep. 474 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L. J. 30. g94 MERGED ESTATES. [Bcox III. The reason for the exception is that the possession of the husband is the possession of the wife, and not an adverse holding by the husband.^ Sec. 867. Estates in coparcenary.— A man may be ten- ant by the curtesy of an estate in fee-simple, or in tail, held in coparcenary, or in common with other persons, where not required for the payment of debts and the ad- justing of equitable claims.^ Sec. 868. In merged estates.— We have already seen that an intervening estate of freehold has the effect to cut off the husband's right to curtesy.^ But where a life estate and the immediate reversion meet in the same person, the particular estate is merged in the greater estate, and if the two estates unite in a feme covert, her husband is entitled to a life estate, as tenant by the curtesy.* Thus where a married woman, who is tenant for life, becomes also the reversioner in fee under a will, with an inter- posed contingent remainder,^ her husband will be entitled to curtesy ; and in Eobertson v. Stevens,^ when a testa- tor devised his estate to his widow until such time as she should raise a specified sum of money, and then devised the entire estate to his daughter, subject to the previous devise to the widow, the court held the husband of the daughter entitled to an estate by the curtesy in the de- vised estate. Sec. 869. In money when.— The rule in equity is that money agreed or directed to be laid out in the purchase of ' Berry v. Hall (Ky.), 118 W. Rep. table claims it will be other- 474 ; s.a 11 Ky. L. J. 30 ; wise. Semmons v. McKay, 5 Barb. (Ky.) Willet v. Brown, 65 Mo. 138 ; s.c. 35. 27 Am. Rep. 365. » Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. ° See : Ante, §§ 864, 865. Y.) 43 ; 4 Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) Buchan v. Sumner, 3 Barb. Ch. 388. ■ (N. Y.) 164. See : Doe v. Scudamore, 3 Bos. See : Shearer v. Shearer, 98 Mass. & P. 394 ; 107 ; Kent v. Hartpoole, 3 Keble 731 ; Campbell v. Campbell, 30 N. J. Plunket v. Holmes, 1 Leav. 11 ; Eq. (3 Stew.) 415, 417 ; Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147 ; Uhler V. Semple, 30 N. J. Eq. s.c. 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 738. (5 C. E. Gr.) 288. = See : Hooker v. Hooker, Cas. Where land needed to pay partner- Temp. Hardw. 13. ship debts or in adjusting equi- ^ 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 347. Chap. XVII. § 870.] INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. G95 land shall be considered as land to all intents and purposes. Upon this principle it is held that a man may be tenant by the curtesy of money agreed or directed to ])e laid out in the purchase of land.^ Thus where a testator devises real estate to his daughter, and she marries, has a child, and dies, previously to a sale of the lands by the execu- tors, under a power contained in her father's will, the husband is entitled to the interest of the money arising from the sale during his life.^ And where lands belong- ing to the wife, as tenant in common, are by order of court sold in order to make partition, the husband is en- titled to curtesy in the money accruing from such sale.^ It was said by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu- setts, in the case of Houghton v. Hapgood,* that where an executor sells the land of a female heir under such circumstances that she might confirm the sale and take the money, or avoid it and take the land, and she pre- ferred the money, her husband was held entitled to the curtesy out of the money, she having died before it was paid over ; but where the money derived from a sale of her land was loaned out by the wife during her life, and at her death divided equally between the husband and the children, he was held to be estopped from claiming curtesy in the land.^ Sec. 8Y0. in incorporeal hereditaments. — At common law, some incorporeal hereditaments, such as advowsons, tithes, commons, and rents, are liable to curtesy ; advow- > Green v. Green, 1 Ohio 535 ; Rundle v. Allison, 34 N. Y. 180, Clapper v. Livergood, 5 Watts 184 (Pa.) 115 : Gillet Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 397 503, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 24 ; Duffy Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Bro. C. 593 ; C 497 499 ■ White v. Parker, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) Dod'son 'v. Hay, 3 Bro. C. C. 48, 73 ; 404 ; Hasler v. Easier, 1 Bradf . (N. Y.) Sweet'apple v. Bindon, 2 Vern. 253; t'. Van Rensselaer, 15 N. Y. V. Duncan, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 536 ; Brown v. Rickets, 4 John. Ch. 3 Brest. Abst. 381. (N. Y.) 30o ; 2 Dunscomb v Dunscomb, 1 John. In re Thorp,Davies (3 Ware) 293 ; Ch (N Y.) 508 ; s.c. 7 Am. Piatt v. OUver, 2 MoL. C. C. 313. Deo. 504. ' Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts See : Boynton v. Dyer, 35 Mass. (Pa.) 115. fl8Pick)6- 1 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 154. King V. Talbot, 40 N. Y. 76, 95 ; ' Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa. St. 449. QQQ PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO. [Book III. sons and tithes have been abolished in this country if ever adopted. The doctrine respecting the liability of rents to curtesy will be hereafter fully treated under that title. Section VII.- —What Peopeety not Sttbject Sbc. 871. Introduction. Sec. 872. Estates not of inheritance. Sec. 873. Life estates. Sec. 874. Separate estate wlien. Sec. 875. Same— Will of grantor. Sec. 876. Same— With reservation. Sec. 877. Same— Settlement by husband. Sec. 878. Estates held as trustee. Sec. 879. Pre-emption claim. Sec. 880. Land £issigned for dower. Sec. 881. Estates held in joint tenancy. Sec. 882. Determinable fees. Sec. 883. In proceeds of land. Sec. 884. Lands of former husband. Sec. 885. Lands sold before marriage. Sec. 886. Adverse possession and bar of s Sec. 887. In lands mortgaged to wife. Sec. 888. In remainder and reversion. Section 8T1. introduction.— Having stated the different kinds of property which are liable to curtesy, it will now be necessary to inquire what things are not subject to this right. We have already seen that the estate of the wife, to entitle the husband to curtesy, must be an estate of inheritance in possession ; ^ consequently whether the husband is entitled to hold as tenant by the curtesy or not must be determined by the estate of which the wife was seized during coverture.^ Sec 872. Estates not of inheritance.— An estate by the curtesy being regarded as a continuation of the wife's inheritance,^ it follows that an estate in lands less than an estate of inheritance will not be subject to curtesy ; for the reason that it is absolutely necessary that the moment the husband takes as tenant by the curtesy, the inheritance should descend from the wife to her child or children.* ' See : Ante, § 723, et seq. ■> See : Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. ' Haynes v. Bourne, 43 Vt. 686. 47 ; 1 See : Ante, § 764. Chap. XVII. § 874.] LIFE ESTATE— SEPARATE ESTATE. G97 Sec. 873. Life estates.— Life estates being estates of freehold and not of inheritance/ and the rule being that a tenancy by the curtesy must come out of the inherit- ance and not out of the freehold, ^ it necessarily follows that there cannot be an estate by the curtesy in a life estate.^ Thus it has been said that an estate settled on a feme covert for life, with a power of appointment at her death in fee, does not give to her such an estate as will entitle her husband to curtesy on her failure to appoint ; * and that a devise or conveyance of an estate to a woman and the " heirs of her body " does not vest in her such an estate as will entitle the husband to curtesy.^ Sec. 874. Separate estate when.— We have already seen that both by common law ® and under statute " a husband is entitled to an estate by the curtesy in the separate estate of his wife, unless excluded therefrom by express words. But a husband cannot be tenant by the curtesy of real estate conveyed to the wife for her sole and sepa- rate use, with power of disposal, after she has disposed of it by will duly executed and attested.^ And some courts hold that where real estate is limited to the use of a woman, independently of her husband, and to be disposed Roberts v. Dixwell, 1 Atk. 607 ; Sumner v. Partridge, 3 Atk. Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147 ; 47 ; Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 249. Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 349. ' See : Ante, § 557, et seq. Will of wife — Gives no interest when. 2 See : Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. —In Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N. Y. 47 ; Supp. 206 ; s.o. 37 N. Y. St. Rep. Barker v. Barker, 3 Sim. 249. 699, it is said that a husband is 2 Phillips V. La Forge, 89 Mo. 72 ; not entitled by the will of his s.c. 1 S. W. Rep. 220 ; 4 West. wife in his favor to any interest Rep. 683 ; in land in which a life inter- Burris «. Page, 12 Mo. 359 ; est only was devised to her by Graves v. Trueblood, 96 N. C. her father, even though the fee 495. went to tlie latter's heirs at See : Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N. Y. law. Supp. 206 ; s.o. 37 N. Y. St. R. " See : Ante, § 842. 699 f ' See : Ante, § 843. Haynes v. Bourne, 42 Vt. 686 ; » Pool v. Blakie, 53 III. 495, 500. Sumner v Partridge, 3 Atk. 47 ; It is said in the case of Graves v. Barker V. Barker, 3 Sim. 249. Trueblood, 96 N. C. 495, that * Graves v. Trueblood, 96 N. C. an estate settled on a feme 495 covert for life, with a power of Compare : Ante, § 844. appointment at her death in fee, ^ Burris v. Page, 13 Mo. 358 ; does not give her such an estate Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N. Y. Supp. as will entitle the husband to 306 • B.C. 37 N. Y. St. R. 699 ; curtesy if she faUs to appoint. 60S RESERVATION DEFEATS CURTESY. IBOOK III. of by deed or will as she may think fit, her husband can- not be tenant by the curtesy.^ Sec. 875. Same— Will of grantor.— We have already seen that where the manifest intention of the grantor is to cut off the husband's estate by the curtesy, he will be excluded ; ^ consequently where the language of a will clearly showed it to be the intention of the testator that his daughter's husband should not acquire an estate by curtesy in land devised to her, such intention will prevail.^ Thus it is said, in the case of Haight v. Hall,* that a deed to a mar- ried woman, "to her sole and separate use, and free from the interference or control of her said husband, or any husband, and her heirs and assigns, to her and their only proper use and benefit forever," must be held to defeat a right to curtesy in the premises on the grantee's death, where, by the statutes of the state, a married woman could hold real estate as if unmarried, as the restriction in the grant can have no force whatever given to it un- less the intention was to exclude the estate by the curtesy. Sec. 876. Same— With reservation in.— A reservation in the conveyance of lands to a married woman may operate to defeat the husband's right to curtesy. Thus where lands are conveyed during coverture to the separate use of the wife in fee, and the deed reserves a life estate to the grantor, the husband does not, on the death of the wife, leaving the grantor, become tenant by the curtesy.^ And it is said by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in the case of Yankeyy. Sweeney,® that where a father conveys land to his daughter in consideration of love and affection, and also of an agreement by the daughter to support him and his wife during their lives, reserving a lien to secure such support, he is entitled, upon the death of the daughter leaving her husband, to the exclusive use and control of ' See : Beecher v. Hicks, 5 Lea " Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 111. (Tenn.) 207 ; 347. Burris v. Page, 12 Me. 358 ; See : Ante, § 845, and authorities Haight V. Hall, 74 Wis. 152 ; s.c. cited. 42 N. W. Rep. 109 ; 3 L. A. R. ' 74 Wis. 152 ; s.c. 42 N. W. Rep. ,857 ; 109 ; 3 L. R. A. 857. Moore v. Webster, L. R. 3 Eq. » Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala. 267. 626 ■ See : Ante, § 845. <■ 85 Ky. 55 ; s.c. 2 S. W. Rep. 559. Oh.vp. XVII. §§ 877, 878.] ESTATES HELD AS TRUSTEE. G99 the land during his life, and also to so much of the land itself as is necessary to support him and his wife, as against the husband's claim for curtesy, it appearing that the husband and father are estranged and that the es- trangement is likely to continue. Sec. 877. Same — Settlement by husband. —We have already seen that the general rule is that where a hus- band settles lands upon his wife for her sole and separate use, by conveying them to a trustee to hold for her bene- fit, or that of her and her heirs, that he will be entitled to curtesy therein. ^ A contrary doctrine, however, pre- vails in Nebraska, 2 Pennsylvania,^ Virginia,* and per- haps elsewhere, but the general rule^ has the better reason as well as the weight of decision. Sec. 878. Estates held as trustee.— The mere possession of a legal estate, of which the \vife maybe seized as trus- tee, will not suffice to make the husband tenant by the curtesy, though she has the beneficial interest in the re- version ; ^ and this is true, whether the trust be express or implied by law from the wife's contract entered into prior to her marriage.'^ Therefore where a woman held a ground rent, in fee, in trust for another during his life, and she afterwards married and died, and then the cestui 1 See : Ante, § 851. Stokes v. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. « In the case of McCulIoch v. Val- 267 ; entine, 24 Neb. 215 ; s.o. 38 N. Bennet v. Davis, 2 Pr. Wms. 316. W. Rep. 854, where the share » Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 361 ; of a daughter was bequeathed Stokes v. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. to trustees for her benefit and 267 ; her children, her husband to Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. have no control over the same (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 60. whatever ; and the habendum ■* Dugger v. Dugger, 84 Va. 130 ; clause of a deed of land pur- s.c. 4 S. E. Rep. 171 ; chased therewith was: "To Irvine t'. Greever, 32 Graft. (Va.) have and to hold said real es- 411, 419 ; tate for the sole and separate Sayers v. Wall, 26 Gratt. (Va.) use of said daughter for life, 354. and thereafter for her chil- ' See : Ante, §§ 851-854. dren," with the further clause " Chew v. Commissioners of South- that the husband might occupy wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160. and control it for her during See : Welch v. Chambers, 13 B. her life the court held that no Mon. (Ky.) 430, 431 ; right of curtesy existed upon Sentill v. Robeson, 2 Jones (N. C.) the wife's death. -Eq- 510. PiHno- • Pool V. Blakie, 53 III. ' Welch v. Chambers, 13 B. Mon. 495;' (Ky.) 420, 431. 700 PRE-EMPTION CLAIM AND DOWER. [Book III. que trust died, the husband was held not to be entitled to the rent, as such tenant.^ Sec. 879. Pre-emption claim.— Until the title to public lands has been duly transferred as provided by law, the property therein remains in the government ; for this reason a husband has been held not to be entitled to curtesy in the pre-emption rights of his wife in public lands of the United States.^ Sec. 880. Land assigned for dower.— A man cannot be tenant by the curtesy of lands which are assigned to a woman for her dower . The reason for this rule will be given in the next title. ^ Thus where a woman on whom lands descend endows her mother, afterwards marries, has issue, and dies in the lifetime of her mother, her husband will not be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in those lands whereof the mother was endowed, because the daughter's seisin was defeated by the endowment.* Sec. 881. Estates held in joint tenancy. — We have already seen that at common law, to entitle a husband to an estate by the curtesy, whether the wife's estate be a legal or an equitable one, there must be a several seisin ;^ conse- quently estates in fee or in tail which are held in joint tenancy are not subject to curtesy. The reason for this rule will be given in that title.^ Sec. 882. Determinable fees.— We have already seen that the courts are divided in opinion in regard to the right of a husband to an estate by the curtesy in a determinable fee. Any further discussion not being desirable, reference is hereby made to the previous discussion and authorities.^ 1 Chew V. Commissioners of South- the husband and wife hold o ,. '^^^^' 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160. premises jointly. On the death McDamel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465. of the wife the husband be- Stewart v. Barclay, 3 Bush (Ky.) comes a tenant by the curtesy, ^^^ ' and no right of action exists in Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn. ) 491 ; the children to recover the land , T. ^-P- '^5 Am. Dec. 777. until the estate by curtesy ter- ' Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 491; minates. s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 777. Berry v. Hall, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 80; ' See : Ante, § 866. s.c. 11 S. W. Rep. 474. Exception to the rule.— The single ' See : Ante, % 863. exception to this rule is where Chap. XVII. §§ 883-885.] PROCEEDS OF LAND. 70I Sec. 883. In proceeds of land.— We have already seen that under certain conditions money is to be regarded as land, and a husband will be entitled to curtesy therein, ^ such as where the estate is sold by order of court on par- tition proceedings ; ^ but if the husband voluntarily con- veys his interest in the curtesy, together with the title to the estate, and invests the proceeds of such sale in other lands and takes the title thereto in his children's name or in his own as guardian, he will not be entitled to have curtesy in the last purchased tract, for the reason that his wife never was seized thereof.^ Sec. 884. Lands of former husband.— We have already seen that the general rule is that a husband will be en- titled to curtesy in so much of the estate of a former hus- band of his wife or his child by her may by possibility inherit ; * but to this general rule there are some excep- tions, as under the Michigan^ and Ohio^ statutes. And it has been held that where a husband and wife convey the land of the wife, and the husband agrees to invest the proceeds in land for the use of the children of the wife by a former husband, the husband has no curtesy in the land thus purchased, and if, in violation of his agreement, he takes the title to himself, a court of equity will enforce the trust in favor of his step-children, and will require him to account for rents and profits, even during the lifetime of the wife.'^ Sec. 885. Lands sold before marriage.— A husband does not become tenant by the curtesy of lands of his wife sold prior to marriage, where the full consideration was paid and pos- session given, but no deed passed.^ And where a woman, who occupied lands as tenant in tail, previous to her mar- riage, xconveyed them, by lease and re-lease, to a trustee, to the use of her husband for life, remainder to herself for ' See : Ante, % 869. ° See : Tilden i'. Barker, 40 Ohio St. ^Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts 411; ,^ ^ , „_ ^, . _,, (Pa.) 115. Denny v. MoCabe, 35 Ohio St. 2 Boery v. Roijerts, 48 Ark. 17 ; s.c. 576. „„ „, ^ , 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. W. ' Carpenter v. Davis, 73 111. 14. Rep 186 ' Welch v. Chandler, 13 B. Men. 4 See : Ante,'^ 756, 846. (Ky.) 430. 5 See : Hathon v. Lyon, 3 Mich. 93. Y02 LANDS MORTGAGED TO WIFE. [Book III. life, remainder to the first and other sons of the marriage, and the woman died in the lifetime of the husband, it was held that the husband did not take any estate under the settlement, because it was not competent for the wife to pass the estate by such a conveyance, to the prejudice of her issue, after her death, and that he did not take any estate by the curtesy ; because the instant the mar- riage took effect, the estate was vested in the husband during the joint lives of himself and his wife ; conse- quently there never was one moment during the covert- ure when the wife was seized of an estate-tail in posses- sion ; which was necessary, in order to make the husband tenant by the curtesy.^ Sec. 886. Adverse possession and bar of statute.— Where coverture began and ended during adverse possession of the estate, the husband will not be entitled to an estate therein by the curtesy,^ unless indeed actual seisin during coverture was prevented by bodily fear.^ And where the joint right of husband and wife is barred by the statute of limitations, the husband's interest is thereby extin- guished, and should he survive his wife, he has no right- to, or interest in, her real estate as tenant by the curtesy.* Sec. 887. in lands mortgaged to wife.— The husband will not be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in lands held by his wife as mortgagee thereof, unless the equity of -re- demption has been barred by the statute of limitations.^ Sec. 888. In remainder and reversion.— The seisin of the wife, whether actual or potential, must be a present one to entitle the husband to curtesy ; consequently the com- mon-law rule was that where a wife had no seisin of re- mainder in fee, expectant upon a life estate, and died before the determination of the life estate, there could be no tenancy by the curtesy of such remainder or reversion, 1 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 165, See : Ante, § 736. 166 ; "' Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 Head Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7 (Tenn.) 674. T. R.) 276. = Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. Wms. ' Baker v. Oakwood, 49 Hun (N. Y.) 334 ; 416. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33 ; 2 Lesseeof Barr V. GaUoway, 1 McL. 7 Vin. Abr. 156, pi. 22. O. C. 476. Chap. XVn. § 888.] MERGER OF ESTATES. T03 unless the particular estate be ended during the coverture, and this rule obtains in this country, where it has not been changed by statute.-^ We have already seen that where an outstanding life estate and the immediate re- version meet in the same person, the particular estate is merged in the greater ; and if the two estates meet in a feme covert, her husband- will be entitled to a life estate as tenant by the curtesy.^ Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala. 626; Todd V. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 178 ; B.C. 7 L. R. A. 693 ; Mackey v. Proctor, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 433 ; Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 176 ; Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush (Ky.) 550; Webster v. Ellsworth, 147 Mass. 603 ; s.c. 18 N. E. Rep. 569 ; Brooks V. Everetts, 95 Mass. (13 Allen) 575 ; Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass. (8 Allen) 425 ; Blood V. Blood, 40 Mass. (23 Pick.) 80; Eldredge v. Forrestal, 7 Mass. 253; Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 633 ; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ; s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ; Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ; Fiske V. Eastman, 5 N. H. 240 ; Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 549; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 401; Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 506 ; Re Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 598 ; Adair V. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182 ; EUingsworth v. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 643 ; „ . ^^ Dunham v. Osburn, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 634 ; Weir V. Humphries, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 397 ; ^ ,^t r. n Gentry?;. Wahstaflf, 3 Dev. (N. C.) 270 • "Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St 305 ; Shoemaker v. Walker, 2 Serg. & T> /T>o 1 544 * Reed w. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 491 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 777 ; Young w. McIntyi-e,6W. N.C. 253; Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7 T. R.) 273 ; Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C. 363; De Gray v. Richardson, ■ 3 Atk. 467; Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 403 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a ; 3 Bl. Com. 127 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 29, 30. See : Ante, § 64. Thus where a daughter, a feme covert, dies in her mother's life- time, her husband is not entitled to curtesy, in the third assigned as dower, even after termina- tion of the widow's life estate. Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 549; Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 401; Re Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 598; Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 506. The court say, in Malone v. Mc- Laurin, 40 Miss. 161; B.C. 90 Am. Dec. 320, that " aman shall not be tenant by the curtesy of a remainder or reversion " (2 Bl. Com. 127). But this proposition is restricted by the later autlior- ities to cases of remainders or reversions expectant upon es- tates of freehold ; and upon a reversion expectant upon an estate for years, the right of curtesy and dower both accrue, for the reason that the posses- sion of the tenant for years constitutes a legal seisin of the freehold in reversion. Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410; De Gray v. Richardson, 3 Atk. 470; Goodlittle v. Newman, 3 Wils. 521 2 See : Ante, § 864.