« PreviousContinue »
possession of the person seised to the use shall be transferred to the cestui que use; and in the very distinguished argument of the Chief Justice Lee, in delivering the opinion of the court in the case of Martin v. Strahan, 5 Term Rep. 107, 110, in note, is the following passage : “ It is the use of the fee-simple that passes to the recoveror from tenan, in tail, and which results to him (i. e. tenant in tail) and his heirs, if no use is declared.”
2 Hayes Conv. (5th ed.) 464, 465. The limitations in a deed operating under the Statute of Uses must, in their creation, be either
1. Vested, - conferring, therefore, legal estates (as, where the land is limited to A. for life, remainder to B. for life or in tail, remainder to C. in fee, or to A. for life, remainder to B. for life or in tail), in which case the whole use of the fee-simple (in the first example), or such portion of the use as the limitations embrace (in the second example), is immediately drawn out of the grantor, covenantor, &c., and executed in the cestui que use by the statute, and the undisposed of residue of the use (in the second example), results to, or remains in, the grantor, &c., as a reversion expectant on the particular estates created by the limitations ; - or,
2. Not vested, and not, therefore, conferring legal estates (as to the heirs of the body of B., a person now living, or to A. for life, if he shall return from Rome, remainder to the heirs of the body of B., a person now living, or from and after Christmas-day next to A. in fee), in which case the whole use of the fee-simple results to, or remains in, the grantor, &c., subject to be drawn out of him, to the extent of the estates to be conferred by the limitations, on their becoming vested, either as remainders, if eventually capable of effect as such (for, in the second example, the limitation to the heirs of the body of B. would, if A. should return from Rome in B.'s lifetime, be good as a contingent remainder), or if not so capable, and if confined within the bounds prescribed by the rule against perpetuities, then as springing or future uses ; - or,
3. Partly vested, and partly not vested (as, to A. for life, remainder to the heirs of the body of B., a person now living, remainder to C. in fee; or to A. for life, and, at the end of one year or one day after his death, to the heirs of the body of B., & person now living), in which case such portion of the use as the vested limitations embrace, is immediately drawn out of the grantor, &c., and executed in the cestuis que use by the statute ; and the undisposed of residue of the use results to, or remains in, the grantor, &c., as a reversion espectant on the particular estates created by such vested limitations, subject to be drawn out of him, to the extent of the estates to be conferred by the remaining limitations, on their becoming vested, either as remainders, or as springing or future uses.
The foregoing propositions, of course, assume that, in deeds taking effect by transmutation of possession, there is nothing to rebut the supposed resulting use, and fix it in the feoffees, releasees, &c. ; and it should be observed that the legal use will not result to the grantor, releasor, &c., where it would defeat the intent of the conveyance by merging a particular estate expressly limited to the grantor, releasor, &c.
Assuming these positions to be accurate, it would seem to flow from them, as a necessary consequence, that by no possibility can a particular estate of freehold, in any case, result to, or remain in, the grantor, covenantor, &c. ; - for,
1. Where no limitation is vested, less than the whole use of the feesimple cannot result or remain ; — and,
2. Where all or some of the limitations are vested, and absorb the whole use of the fee-simple, nothing can result or remain ; — and,
3. Where all or some of the limitations are vested, but do not absorb the whole use of the fee-simple, the residue of the use (being the ultimate remnant of the ancient use) will result or remain, as a reversion expectant on such portion of the use as passes in the particular vested estates.
On principle, it is conceived that the grantor, &c., cannot be in of a particular estate of freehold, as part of his old use, whereof he hath not disposed, because if he make a partial disposition of the use, it must be in some particular vested estate or estates; and, such particular estate or estates being deducted, the residue will be the use of the ulterior feesimple.
LEAKE, DIGEST LAND Law, 107, 108. Upon the same principle, if upon a feoffment or conveyance in fee the use be declared for a particular estate only, and no consideration appear to carry the residue, so much of the use as is undisposed of by the declaration remains in the grantor as a resulting use. Thus, if the use be declared to the grantee or another for life, or in tail, or for years only, the reversion of the use being undisposed of results to the grantor. And a consideration paid in such case will be presumptively attributed to the estate limited, and will afford no inference as to the use undisposed of.
But if the use be declared to the grantor for an estate for life or years, the reversion, though not expressly disposed of, does not result to him in
lorrullina but vests in the grantee ; for by the opposite construction the particular estate would merge in the reversion and the grantor would resume the
o use to araklar entire fee, against the express terms of the declaration of uses, which
u te Utar restricts his interest to the particular estate. If, however, the use be
i declared to the grantor for an estate tail, he may also take the reversion
1 “But it is said, that if a man be seised of land in fee, and grant a rent issuing out of the land to a stranger, without any consideration, &c., the grantee shall be seised of this rent to his own use ; for the law cannot intend such a grant to be made to the use of the grantor.” Perk. 8 531.
2 But see Pibus v. Mitford, 1 Vent. 372; Fearne, C. R. 42.
by resulting use; for an estate tail and the reversion in fee may subsist together in the same person."
If the feoffment or conveyance of the legal possession be made for a particular estate only, as a gift in tail, or a lease for life or for years, the tenure alone thereby created, with its attendant services and obligations, supplied a consideration sufficient to prevent the use from resulting, and to carry it to the donee or lessee; and this doctrine applies at the present day. But an express use declared in favor of another would rebut the use implied from the tenure in such cases. The Statute Quia emptores prevented the creation of any tenure which might carry the use upon a conveyance of the fee simple.8
USES RAISED WITHOUT TRANSMUTATION OF POSSESSION.
St. 27 HEN. VIII., c. 16. ST. OF ENROLMENTS (1535). Be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament, That from the last day of July, which shall be in the year of our Lord God 1536, no manors, lands, tenements or other hereditaments, shall pass, alter or change from one to another, whereby any estate of inheritance or freehold shall be made or take effect in any person or persons, or any use thereof to be made, by reason only of any bargain and sale thereof, except the same bargain and sale be made by writing indented sealed, and inrolled in one of the King's courts of record at Westminster, (2) or else within the same county or counties where the same manors, lazds or tenements, so bargained and sold, lie or be, before the Custos Rotulorum and two justices of the peace, and the clerk of the peace of the same county or counties, or two of them at the least, whereof the clerk of the peace to be one ; (3) and the same enrolment to be had and made within six months next after the date of the same writings indented ; (4) the same Custos Rotulorum, or justices of the peace and clerk, taking for the enrolment of every such writing indented before them, where the land comprised in the same writing exceeds not the yearly value of forty shillings, ii. s. that is to say, xij. d. to the justices, and
1 Bacon on Uses, Rowe's ed. notes, p. 223; 1 Sanders on Uses, 103; see Adams v. Savage, 2 Salk. 679; L. Raym. 854. “Generally speaking, when two estates unite in the same person in the same right, the smaller one is merged in the other, except in the case of an estate tail and a reversion in fee, which may exist together: in such case by the operation of the Statute De donis, the estate tail is kept alive, not merged by the reversion in fee." Per KENYON, C. J., 5 T. R. 110, in Roe v. Baldwere.
3 Perkins, &$ 534-537 ; 2 Leon. 16, Brent's Case ; Dyer, 312 a. The relation of landlord and tenant is a consideration in law, hence in a contract for a lease no other consideration is necessary. King's Leaseholds, L. R. 16 Eq. 521. (See particularly 1 Sand. Uses (5th ed.) 86–88. - Ep.)
3 Perkins, $$ 528, 529.
Boynton, in consid rete locul
ore his controliral, and Udspin the yearly staff Uotiis teay, ie vid.to thee
ites whildhvilke the same clerk for the enteng tua Same tai thadute gark of interacenabelubulon trer mounty, shall suncient enrol and ingross in Firthe same
وه هه له مها , ومنهم ا لامام موسسه
sweilertear she deliver unto the said Cowos noturion of the
lor life bechen to the various of Lathi
Re Urrum for the time being, amongst other records
then to his various thee of
ll be so را مهمم هم لهم مما
alike dealt a andrator of everthing to enro
ade to pe intent that every parts that tratto lori ai
Prato always this one incliningrainecke Tid to the maten Tan K Tenements, or rectaments, Tiny oro
Theo lis vuointitat deutled town corporate within this realm,
Per le m ois, recorders, chamberlains, bailiffs or other officer or
deed D. or oth writings within their precinct or liminane thing in love and affrederitis path consid to cause
familloute is not suff.
Tayloe o ale ned Ploved, 298. ] De erallget hadir ment change of cauled it to
achart that Paleo Eute Robes and from time d Itacloth as a mealle fact
o it was sold for
berald fee non allora cover
Non seidh Antony of the one
fee, lyon indenture plein come award the e
A rregi avec
trend me. But had ette alla. buah baigais & sale, aunt would have possed che no actornment