An Act of Ownership operates as a Seisin. Inst. 15 a. 8 Rep. 35 b. Id. 191 b. Stringer v. New, 9 Mod. 363. held, that as the reversion which descended on the eldest sister was never clothed with possession, it would descend to the sister of the half blood. 16. Where the person entitled to a remainder or reversion, exercises an act of ownership over it, by granting it for life, or in tail; this is deemed equivalent to an actual seisin of an estate, which is capable of being reduced into possession by entry; and will make the person exercising it a new stock or root of inheritance. For an entry being impossible, the alienation of the remainder or reversion for a certain time, is allowed to be sufficient to change the descent; because such alienation being formerly always attended with attornment, was deemed equal, in point of notoriety, to an entry on a descent. 17. Thus Lord Coke, after stating the case of a son's endowing his father's widow, says-"But if the eldest son had made a lease for life, and the lessee had endowed the wife of his father, and tenant in dower had died, the daughter should have had the reversion, because the reversion was changed and altered by the lease for life; and the reversion is now expectant on a new estate for life." In another place he says "for many times the change of the freehold makes an alteration or change of the reversion." This doctrine has been confirmed by Lord Hardwicke in the following case. 18. A. being tenant for life, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to his first and other sons in tail male, remainder to the heirs of his own body, remainder to the right heirs of his father; had a sister of the half blood, and also a sister of the whole blood. A. conveyed the estate to B. by lease and release, in trust for payment of debts, and levied a fine thereof. و Lord Hardwicke said, the question was, whether A. had made any alteration as to the descent of the reversion in fee. If he had not, it would descend to the sister of the half blood, who was the elder daughter, and equally heir to the father with the other daughter. But if he had altered it and given it to himself, it would descend to the sister of the whole blood, who claimed as heir to her brother, who was last actually seised, and who would be entitled under that known rule of law, that possessio fratris de feodo simplici facit sororem esse hæredem. But then it was certain that must be an actual possession; so that it was argued in this case that this being an estate for life in A. with a remainder in tail, and a reversion in fee expectant; this was not such a possession as would entitle the younger daughter to take under a possessio fratris. What was insisted upon on the other hand, in order to have altered the course of descent, and given it to the heirs of A. instead of the father, was, that A. had made a lease and release, and thereby conveyed the estate to B., in trust for the payment of debts, &c. and levied a fine thereof; but had not suffered a recovery. And the question was, whether this fine had changed the reversion in fee, and thereby altered the descent. He was of opinion that it did alter the reversion; that therefore the estate would go to the right heirs of A.; and founded his opinion on the two passages ante 17. stated in a former section from Coke on Littleton, 15 a. and 191b.; from which it appeared, that in consequence of such change in the reversion, it should descend to the heir of the son; and therefore entitle the younger sister of the whole blood to claim as heir to him by a possessio fratris. The conveyance was by lease and release to B., to pay debts, &c.; and surely this was a great alteration, for this amounted to a grant of his estate for life; it likewise passed the reversion in fee; for as he was right heir of his father, he had a reversion to grant, though it would descend to the right heirs of the father, without any such alteration; and though the estate was subject to redemption on payment of the debts, &c. yet it would follow the heirs of the son, because the son had changed it, and made it his own by a plain alteration. He then said he should consider what would be the effect of the fine, supposing the lease and release out of the case. That fine would certainly have barred Vide Tit. 35. the remainder in tail to himself, for he was seised for life, with remainder to the heirs of his own body; so that the fine barred the estate, and would have amounted to a grant of the reversion in fee, if to a stranger. Now this reversion in fee, instead of being expectant on the estate tail, as it originally was, did now depend on an estate in contingency. Therefore on this case, whether the reversion being thus changed, should alter the descent of it, so as to go to the heirs of the son, he was clearly of opinion that it was literally within what was laid down in Co. Lit. 191 b. that if the elder brother change the freehold, it shall alter the reversion likewise, and shall cause a possessio fratris. In this case both the conveyances changed the reversion, and therefore the estate descended to the heir of the whole blood to the brother. B SECTION 1. ESIDE the descent of lands in fee simple, there Descent of are two other modes of descent, of which it will Estates Tail. The first of these is be proper to give an account*. the descent of estates tail, which is regulated by the statute de donis conditionalibus; and is therefore Tit. 2 c. 1. called descent by statute. 2. The descent of an estate tail resembles that of a feudum novum; for the person to whom an estate tail is originally given or limited, is the first purchaser of it; and none but those who are lineally descended from him can derive a title to it by descent t. * The descent of dignities has been already discussed in Title 26; and the descent of estates held by prescription will be noticed in Title 31. †The descent of an estate limited to the heirs of the body of A. will be stated in Tit. 32. c. 21. 8. In some cases the descent of an estate tail is not only confined to the lineal descendants of the first Tit. 2. c. 1. purchaser, or doneę, but is restrained to those of the male sex, as in the case of estates in tail male; or to those who are born of a particular woman, as in the case of estates in tail special. 1 Inst. 46 a. 7 Rep. 8 b. Go to the 1 Inst. 15 b. 3 Rep. 41 b. 4. The descent of an estate tail may be defeated by the subsequent birth of a nearer heir in tail. Thus, if a tenant in tail general dies, leaving a daughter, and after his wife is delivered of a son, such son may enter; for this was an estate tail vested. 5. The maxim that seisina facit stipitem, does not take place in the descent of estates tail: it being only necessary, in deriving a title to an estate of this kind by descent, to deduce the pedigree from the first purchaser, and to show that the claimant is heir to him; for the issue in tail claim per formam doni; that is, they are as much within the view and intention of the donor, and as personally and precisely described in the gift, as any of their ancestors. 6. The exclusion of the half blood does not take Half Blood. place in the descent of estates tail; because the descent from the first purchaser, or original donee of the estate, must be strictly proved; and when the lineage is thus made out, there is no need of this auxiliary evidence. Lord Coke says, the issue in tail is ever of the whole blood to the donee. And in a modern case Lord Kenyon observed, that in the case of estates tail, the half blood coming within the description of the entail, may inherit as effectually as the whole there the rule of possessio fratris does not apply. 8 Term R. 213. No Corrup 7. The doctrine of corruption of blood does not tion of Blood. take place in the descent of estates tail; for notwithstanding the forfeiture of lands entailed by attainder |