What do you understand by breaking the descent ?

Simply that where an estate which has descended in one particular line as ex parte maternâ, is sold by one of the parties, or is devised by his will, the old line of descent is broken, and the purchaser or devisee becomes the new propositus.

How far does an estate in fee simple descending on the heir come to him charged with the debts of the ancestor, and does the liability extend to a devisee?

So far as specialty-that is to say, judgment debts and debts arising by deeds, are concerned to the extent of assets by descent, with the distinction that in deeds in which the ancestor has not bound his heir, he is only liable in Equity, and then only as far as he has assets.

This rule did not formerly apply to devisees, but by the conjoint operations of earlier statutes and subsequently by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104, all the real estates which a person dies seised of and has not charged with his debts, are considered as assets to be administered in the Courts of Equity for payment of the simple contract as well as specialty debts; and by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 46, in the administration of the estate of any person dying from and after the 1st Jan., 1870, specialty debts have no priority as to payment over simple contract debts; but no lien, charge, or other security which the creditor may hold is affected; and now by the Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 77), s. 10, it is enacted that from and after the 2nd Nov., 1875, in the administration of the estates of deceased insolvents the Bankruptcy Rules prevail, as regards proof by secured and unsecured creditors, and as to the classes of debts and kinds of liability that are provable, and as to the valuation of annuities.

Was a man's real estate under the old law ever under any, and what, circumstances liable for his simple contract debts; and what statute altered the law; and in what Court should a creditor seek to establish his claims?

Formerly it was not, but by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 104, it was enacted that when any person should die entitled to any real estate not by his will made subject to his debts, such estate should be considered as assets to be administered in Equity for payment of his debts, as well on simple contract as on specialty.

A creditor should seek to establish his claim in the Chancery Division of the High Court.

CHAPTER XII.

TITLE BY ESCHEAT.

What is the meaning of the word escheat, and in what cases does it arise, and how is the title perfected?

The word is derived from the French Echoir, meaning to happen; hence escheat may be said to arise by chance or accident. The estates fall back to the lord of the fee either (i.) by default of heirs; or (ii.) for want of disposition.. Entry by the lord is required to complete his title.

How are escheats divided? and define each kind.

(i.) Propter defectum sanguinis.

(ii.) Propter delictum tenentis.

The former may be defined as where upon the death of a tenant in fee simple there is no person capable of inheriting who can claim title to the land either by descent or devise.

The latter where the tenant's blood is corrupted by attainder.

Into what classes are escheats propter defectum sanguinis divided? (1.) Where the tenant dies without heirs.

(2.) Where he dies without heirs capable of inheriting, as (i.) monsters; (ii.) bastards; (iii.) aliens.

What is the present law relative to aliens, and what alteration has been made thereby?

By 33 Vict. c. 14, as regards titles accruing after 12th May, 1870, all real and personal property may be acquired and disposed of by an alien in the same manner as a natural-born British subject, and a title derived through, or in succession to an alien as if he had been such a subject; whereas formerly an alien could hold no interest in land, save only a lease for years of a house.

What is attainder? and distinguish between attainder and forfeiture to the Crown.

Attainder was where the blood of the tenant, by the commission of any felony, including treason, was held to be corrupted, and the original donation of the feud, which was dum bene se gesserit, broken.

Forfeiture of lands was part of the old Saxon law not relating at all to the feudal system, but it was a prerogative of the Crown. Escheat, therefore, operated subordinately. Again, forfeiture only applied to existing estates. Attainder corrupted the blood, and

the tenant could not inherit in the future; and he also obstructed the channel of descent. Again, the Crown may remit the forfeiture, but an Act of Parliament is required to remove corruption of blood.

How has the doctrine of corruption of blood or attainder been gradually removed?

(i.) By 54 George III. c. 145, save in the case of treason or murder.

(ii.) By the 10th section of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 106, a predeceased attainted relation does not obstruct the channel of descent unless the estate had escheated before 1st January, 1834.

(iii.) By 13 & 14 Vict. c. 60, trust property is unaffected by the attainer of the trustee; and

(iv.) By 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, after the passing of that Act no judgment for any treason or felony shall cause any attainder or corruption of blood, or any forfeiture or escheat.

CHAPTER XIII.

TITLE BY OCCUPANCY.

What is occupancy, and to what instance is it confined?

The taking possession of those things which before had no owner; it only applies to the case of a tenant pur autre vie (that is, one who holds for the life of another) dying in the lifetime of that other or the cestui que vie, as he was called. Here the first person who could enter held the land, and was styled "general occupant."

What is a quasi entail?

Where the estate pur autre vie is granted to a man and the heirs of his body. It is barred in the same way as an ordinary estate tail save that enrolment is not required.

What is the law at the present day?

The doctrine of general occupancy is abolished, and the property made devisable; if not devised, the heir enters as special occupant subject to his ancestor's debts; otherwise the lands go to the personal representatives subject to the debts of the deceased, the balance to be divided amongst the next of kin as personal estate.

What is an estate by occupancy, and what changes have been made in the law in relation to such an estate?

See preceding answers.

Who is the owner of a corporation sole in the case of death?

The law until a successor be appointed, and then his title relates back to the death of his predecessor.

Who is entitled to a new island, and to land gained from the sea by alluvion or dereliction?

The Crown. As to the land gained from the sea, it depends whether the dereliction, &c., be a sudden thing or not; if not the owner of the land behind gets the benefit; if sudden the Crown.

How would it be if the circumstances last mentioned took place in a river?

The island would belong to the nearest riparian owner, and the rule of riparian owners follows the last rule of alluvion and dereliction in the last answer, except in cases of a flood.

CHAPTER XIV.

TITLE BY FORFEITURE.

What is forfeiture, and what are the various kinds?

It is a punishment annexed by law to some illegal act or negligence of the owner of the things real, whereby the estate is transferred to another, who is usually the party injured, or to the Crown.

The various kinds are:

(i.) By Mortmain; (ii.) alienation contrary to law; (iii.) disclaimer.

What is an alienation in mortmain ?

A conveyance of lands to a corporation, of whatever sort it may be, either (i.) sole; (ii) aggregate; (iii.) ecclesiastical; or (iv.) temporal.

How far is a corporation capable of purchasing lands?

Conveyances cannot be made to corporations unless they have a licence from the Crown, and then they are made "to them and their successors."

What do you know of the statute De Religiosis?

The large doweries that were showered upon religious houses

without obtaining the above licence, led to a statute passed in the reign of Henry III., which made them void; but this only extended to religious houses; bishops and the other sole corporations were not included in it; hence the statute De Religiosis, 7 Ed. I. stat. 2, which prevented any person, religious or otherwise, buying, selling, or receiving under colour of a gift, any lands or tenements in mortmain, under pain of forfeiture.

What are the principal Acts relative to the relaxation of Mortmain? and state shortly what they enact.

By 9 Geo. II. c. 36 no lands, &c., or money to be laid out thereon shall be given for any charitable uses whatsoever unless by deed indented, executed in the presence of two witnesses twelve calendar months before the death of the donor, and enrolled in the Court of Chancery within six months after its execution (except stocks in public funds, which may be transferred within six months previous to the owner's death), unless the gift be made to take effect immediately and without power of revocation. There are also exceptions in favour of Oxford and Cambridge, the public schools of Eton, Winchester, and Westminster, the British Museum, &c., and the death of the donor within the year will not affect the matter in case of a sale the money being paid down at or immediately before the execution of the conveyance. The other Act is 24 Vict. c. 9, which allows reservations of nominal rents, mines, provisions of re-entry on breach of covenant, to view the position of roads, streets, and adjacent buildings, and allows the consideration in the case of a sale to consist of a rent, assuming the same benefits are reserved to the representatives of the grantor as the grantor himself.

There is also 34 Vict. c. 13, the Public Parks Act.

It will be seen that the tendency of the above enactments is to prevent estates being given to charities by will, as people on their death-beds are more liable to influence.

What is the Act regulating gifts to a charity? What is the Act called, and what conditions must be observed to make a valid gift to a charity?

See last answers.

What was the effect of alienation by particular tenants for greater estates than the law permitted? Give examples.

When the conveyance was one at Common Law they were forfeited to the person in remainder, as in the case of a tenant for life alienating his estate by feoffment; but supposing a tenant in tail aliened in fee, he did not forfeit his estate, but merely caused a discontinuance, which the issue might avoid by entry.