tered into, and was in poffeffion of the premises, and, by indenture of feoffment, conveyed the fame to James Earl and his heirs, for the purpose of making him a tenant to the præcipe, in order that a common recovery might be fuffered thereof to the use of Sir Robert Atkyns the fon, in fee-fimple; and livery of feifin was given to the faid James Earl, and a common recovery duly fuffered, to the faid ufes. Sir Robert Atkyns continued in poffeffion until November 1711, when he died without iffue male of his body by Lovis his wife, who furvived him. Dame Ann Atkyns, the widow of Sir Robert Atkyns the father, brought an ejectment in the King's Bench in Hilary term 1711, for the recovery of the faid premifes; and, having obtained a verdict and judgment thereupon, entered into poffeffion of the fame premises, and continued in poffeffion thereof until the 9th of October 1712, when fhe died. Soon after the death of Dame Ann, Robert Atkyns, who was nephew and heir at law of Sir Robert Atkyns the fon, entered into the premises in queftion, and continued in poffeffion until March 1753, when he died; Thomas Dacres, the furvivor of the three perfons named in the leafe, died in July 1752. John Atkyns, the leffor of the plaintiff, never was in poffeffion of the premifes, or entered thereon, until the 15th December 1752, when he entered upon the fame, claiming as devifee under, and by virtue of the will of Sir Robert Atkyns the father, and demifed to the plaintiff. Two great questions arose upon this cafe. ift, Whether the recovery was good and valid to bar the reverfion in fee which was devised to John Atkyns. 2d, whether, fuppofing the recovery was bad, the plaintiff was barred by the ftatute of limitations. The Court of King's Bench being of opinion, that the recovery was bad, and, therefore, did not bar the claim of the plaintiff, it then became neceffary to determine, whether the leffor of the plaintiff had made his entry within twenty years after his title accrued, for, otherwife, he was barred of his remedy by the ftatute of limitation. I fhall state the opinion of the court, as delivered by Lord Mansfield on this last question. An ejectment is a poffeffory remedy, and only com petent when the leffor of the plaintiff may enter: therefore, it is always neceffary for the plaintiff to show, that his leffor had a right to enter, by proving a poffeffion within twenty years, or accounting for the want of it, under fome of the exceptions allowed by the ftatute. Twenty years adverse poffeffion is a pofitive title to the defendant; it is not a bar to the action or remedy of the plaintiff only, but takes away his right of poffeffion. Every plaintiff in ejectment must fhew a right of poffeffion as well as of property, and, therefore, the defendant needs not plead the ftatute, as in the cafe of actions. The question, then, is, whether it appears, that the leffor of the plaintiff might enter, when he brought Nn 2 brought this ejectment. On the 9th November 1711, Sir Robert Atkyns the younger died without iffue male. On the 10th of October 1712, Lady Atkyns the jointrefs died. Then accrued the title of entry of the leffor of the plaintiff; his only excufe for not entering is, that he was prevented by the leafe to the three Dacres. That upon the death of Thomas Dacres, the surviving leffee, on the 23d July 1752, a new title of entry accrued, upon which he entered on the 15th December 1752, and brought this ejectment. Three answers are given, any one of which, if well-founded, is fufficient. ift, That the leafe was abfolutely void, and of no effect. 2d, If good, it determined by the estate tail being spent, by the express tenor of the demife. 3d, If fubfifting, yet, upon the extinction of the eftate tail, it was a trust to attend the inheritance in the leffor of the plaintiff, and made part of his titledeeds, therefore could not stop the ftatute's running, to protect an adverfe poffeffion, nor give him any new right of entry. ift, That the leafe was void. Sir Robert Atkyns the father being only tenant for life, could by virtue of his ownership make no eftate, to continue after his death; this lease, therefore, after his death, can only be fupported by his power, if it was made pursuant to it: whether it was made purfuant to his power, is the question. ift, It ift, It is no leafe at all; the very definition of a Teafe is, a contract between lord and tenant, by which both are bound in mutual ftipulation. But the leffees are not bound by this leafe, they never executed it; nor does it appear that they knew or confented to it. 2d, Suppofing the leafe to be good, it determined when the estate tail in Sir Robert Atkyns the younger was spent, by the exprefs terms of the demife. 3dly, Suppofing the leafe to be valid and fubfifting, it is a trust, and devised as fuch to attend the inheritance of the leffor of the plaintiff, which came into poffeffion the 9th of October 1712, at which time his title and right of entry first accrued. This lease was one of his muniments, a mere weapon in his hands; and it would be going a great way to fay, fuch a form fhould take from an adverfe poffeffion the benefit of the statute. Judgment was given for the defendants. A writ of error was brought in the House of Lords. The counsel were allowed to argue the last point first; because, if their Lordships fhould be of the fame opinion with the Court of King's Bench, that this ejectment was barred by the ftatute of limitations, it would be quite unneceffary to go into the first question. 6 Bro. Parl. Ca. 633. The Entry must be on the Land. Ford v. Grey, 6 Mod. 44. Gree v. Rolle, 1 Ld. Raym. 716. All the Judges were ordered to attend, to whom, after the arguments at the Bar were over, the Houfe propofed the following question. "Whether fufficient appears, by the special verdict "in this cafe, to prevent the leffor of the plaintiff, by "force of the ftatute of limitations of the 21ft of "king James the firft, from recovering in this eject"ment ?" Whereupon, the Lord Chief Juftice Willes having conferred with the reft of the Judges, delivered their unanimous answer; "That fufficient does appear, by "the fpecial verdict in this caufe, to prevent the leffor "of the plaintiff by force of the ftatute of limita❝tions of the 21 Jac. 1. from recovering in this "ejectment." Whereupon, the judgment of the Court of King's Bench was affirmed. § 21. With respect to the entry or claim, which is required to preserve a right, it has been refolved; that, in proving an entry or claim, it is neceffary to produce evidence of its being made upon the land claimed, unless there be a special reafon to the contrary; and alfo that it was not a cafual entry, but that it was made animo clamandi. § 22. On a special verdict, the fingle question was, whether the entry of ceftui que truft would be fufficient to avoid the statute of limitations, 21 Jac. I. And it was |