the case of copyhold lands appears to be. very distinguishable from the case of freehold lands; since in one case there is a surrender and a re-surrender; two distinct common law conveyances, like a feoffiment and re-enfeoffment, or a fine sur grunt et render; and in the other case, there is, in point of law, merely a conveyance to uses; and it is wholly under the doctrine of courts of equity, as distinguished from the doctrine of the common law, that the use, in its fiduciary state, and now, since the statute of uses, the old use, whether it is taken under an express limitation, or results, descends in the same manner as the estate was descendible prior to the conveyance.

Secondly, If tenant in tail by descent from his mother, or any other ancestor, suffers a common recovery, to the use of himself in fee, the person in whose favor the intail was originally created, shall be considered as the purchasing ancestor; and the fee, taken under the recovery, will be descendible exactly in the same manner, as if the donee in tail had been the purchaser of an estate in fee-simple, instead of being the purchaser of an estatetail. The reason of this rule in courts of equity, and its adoption by courts of law, will be considered in the Essay on the Quantity of Estates, when that book shall be republished...

This point should be particularly attended to in those cases, in which the title is derived by descent from a tenant in tail. Indeed, in every case in which a title is made by a person as heir, care should be taken to see, that such person is heir to the former owner, as far as respects the estate in question.

This chapter will be closed by the obser vation that in investigating a title, as depending on a recovery, the attention should be particularly directed to these points.

First, That there appears to have been a good tenant to the writ of entry at the time of suffering the recovery, or before the end of the term, in which the recovery is suffered.

Secondly, That the person who is vouched had either in point of estate, or right under an estate once vested, an estate-tail, and that he vouched over.

Thirdly, That execution has been sued, and seisin delivered on the recovery; and Fourthly, That all the proceedings are regular.

CHAP. II.

On Fines.

A FINE is an assurance by matter of record. It is founded on a supposed previous existing right. Hence the writ which requires the party to perform his covenant, is the foundation of the fine, and the commencement of the proceedings (ƒ).

The parties to a fine are,

First, The plaintiff, frequently denominated the conuzee.

Secondly, The deforceant, generally denominated the conuzor (g).

Sometimes the plaintiff conuzee or grantee is the person who is to have the benefit of the fine. More frequently he is named, merely for the purpose of receiving the estate, that uses may arise from his seisin.

The deforceant is the person by whom the

(f) 2 Black. Com. 349. (g) Shep. Touchst. 2.

fine is acknowledged, and consequently the person who is the grantor in the fine.

There are several sorts of fine, viz.

1st, A fine sur conuzance de droit come seo, &c.

2d. A fine sur done grant et render.

3d. A fine sur conuzance de droit tantum.
4th. A fine sur concessit.

The first of these fines is in more general use, and is to be prefered, except in particular cases, in which a forfeiture might be incurred by levying it.-For if a person who has merely an estate for life of the legal estate (h), either of a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament (i), or who has an estate for life, with a remote estate of inheritance after, and subject to intermediate estates of inheritance, levies this fine, he will forfeit his estate for life (k). So if he accepts a fine of this description, because he thereby admits the inheritance to be in the conuzor (/).—So if two tenants for life levy a fine of this sort (m), or one of them levies the fine, and the other accepts it (n), both their estates will be forfeited. The concurrence of the person who has

(k) Pelham's Case, 1 Co. 101.

Garrett v. Blizard, 1 Roll Ab. 855.

(l) 2 Lev. 202; Co. Litt. 252, a; i Leo. 264.

(m) Smith v, Abell, 2. Lev. 202.

(n) 1 Leo. 261. 2 Lev. 202..

the immediate estate of inheritance, will prevent the fine from operating as a forfeiture(o).

On this point there is a difference between fines and recoveries; for if tenant for life joins in suffering a recovery with a person who has a remote estate of inheritance, there will not be any forfeiture of the estate for life (p) : and no forfeiture will be incurred by a fine levied by an equitable tenant for life.

This fine is an acknowledgment on record of a previous gift or feoffment, and takes its name from this circumstance (q) Primâ facie, without any words of limitation, it passes a fee (r); but it admits of words of express limitation for life. or in tail (s), and, when there are words of express limitation, it will pass that estate only which is expressed in the concord; being the clause of grant. And when the grant is confined to that degree of interest, of which the conuzor is the owner, no forfeiture will be incurred, because there is no assertion of ownership to the disinheritance of the reversioner, and such assertion of ownership is the cause of forfeiture.

(0) Bredon's Case, 1 Co. 76.

(p) Due. on dem. Smith v. Clifford, 1 Term Rep. 738. (q) 2 Black. Com. 348.

(r) Co. Litt. 9, b...

(s) Hunt v. Bourne, 1 Silk. 340.

Bre. Abr. Fine, pl. 10. Co. Read, 4.