brought within a fixed period, and different limits were from time to time assigned.

The writ of Assize of mort d'ancestor was perhaps instituted by the ordinance called the Assize of Northampton, A.D. 1176, and was applicable only to the particular case where, upon the death of the demandant's father or mother, brother or sister, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, some person other than the lawful heir had entered upon the land. If the demandant could prove that the ancestor died seised "in his demesne as of fee," and that he (the demandant) was the right heir, the result of the decision of these points in his favor would be the establishment of the right of the demandant to the possession as against the tenant. Similar writs, varied in form to suit the circumstances, and called by different names, were used for the recovery of the possession by a person claiming as heir of a more distant relation. It will be seen from the form of the writ that this proceeding would not be applicable when lands had been devised by will, and therefore after the statutes conferring the power of devising lands by will this remedy was no longer available.

The Assize of novel disseisin was applicable where the demandant himself had been turned out of possession. If successful, the demandant would in this proceeding recover his possession, and also damages for the injury sustained. This was the usual remedy for the recovery of the possession of lands. In certain cases which need not be here specified, it was necessary to resort to the writ of right. But as a rule all practical purposes were attained by means of one of the forms of action adapted to trying the right of possession. The remedy by the Assizes of mort d'ancestor and novel disseisin was only applicable in particular cases. The remedy for the recovery of possession, applicable to all cases, whether falling under the two classes just mentioned or not, was the writ of entry. The law on this subject (now obsolete) is of far too intricate and complicated a character to be discussed here. The remedy by assize was preferred when applicable, as being more expeditious.

LEAKE, LAND LAW, 56. Disseisin of the tenant of a particular estate disseised or divested all the estates in remainder or reversion, and converted them into mere rights of entry, exercisable in their order of succession. The tenant himself of the particular estate whether for life or for years, having the actual seisin, had it in his power to make a feoffment to another by livery, which effectually conveyed the fee, if it in terms imported to do so, irrespectively of his own estate or interest; and such feoffment disseised all the estates in remainder or in reversion dependent upon his seisin and converted them into rights of entry.

ID., 58-60. An entry on the land within the time allowed by law restored the seisin, and, if made by the tenant of a particular estate, it restored or revested the estates in remainder or reversion, which were dependent upon the same title. Hence a right of entry was sufficient to preserve a contingent remainder. The right of entry, arising upon a disseisin, was lost in certain events; as by the seisin being cast by descent upon the heir of the disseisor, which was technically called a descent cast; also by an alienation of the fee by the disseisor to another, which was called a discontinuance of the possession. On the other hand, the right of entry might be kept alive against a descent cast by the process of continual claim. Where the right of entry was lost there remained a mere right of action, to be prosecuted within certain limits of time in the form of real action proIvided for the circumstances of the case.

The doctrines concerning rights of entry and of action and the proceedings in real actions were highly technical and elaborate, and formed a large and complicated branch of the law of real property until the amendments of the law made by the statute 3 & 4 W. IV., c. 27. By that statute, s. 36, real actions were abolished, and the action of ejectment was left as the only and the comparatively simple remedy at law for the recovery of the possession of land. By the same statute the right of entry or action is no longer defeated by a descent cast or a discontinuance (s. 39); and

it is exempted from all other casualities except lapse of time. But it must be prosecuted within twenty years next after the accrual of the right (s. 2); subject to the provisions of the statute in the case of disabilities in the person entitled (ss. 16-19).

N. Y. CODE CIV. PROC., § 365. An action to recover real property, or the possession thereof, cannot be maintained by a party other than the people, unless the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seised or possessed of the premises in question, within twenty years before the commencement of the action.

367. An entry upon real property is not sufficient or valid as a claim unless an action is commenced thereupon, within one year after the making thereof, and within twenty years after the time when the right to make it descended or accrued.

N. Y. REAL PROP. LAW, § 225. A grant of real property is absolutely void, if at the time of the delivery thereof such property is in the actual possession of a person claiming under a title adverse to that of the grantor.

CHAPTER III.

ESCHEAT AND FORFEITURE.

(a) Escheat.

2 BL. COM., 244-246. Escheat, we may remember, was one of the fruits and consequences of feodal tenure. The word itself is originally French or Norman, in which language it signifies chance or accident; and with us it denotes an obstruction of the course of descent, and a consequent determination of the tenure, by some unforeseen contingency in which case the land naturally results back, by a kind of reversion, to the original grantor or lord of the fee.

Escheat therefore being a title frequently vested in the lord by inheritance, as being the fruit of a seigniory to which he was entitled by descent (for which reason the lands escheated shall attend the seigniory, and be inheritable by such only of his heirs as are capable of inheriting the other), it may seem in such cases to fall more properly under the former general head of acquiring title to estates, viz., by descent (being vested in him by act of law, and not by his own act or agreement), than under the present, by purchase. But it must be remembered that, in order to complete this title by escheat, it is necessary that the lord perform an act of his own, by entering on the lands and tenements so escheated, or suing out a writ of escheat: on failure of which, or by doing any act that amounts to an implied waiver of his right, as by accepting homage or rent of a stranger who usurps the possession, his title by escheat is barred. It is therefore in some respect a title acquired by his own act, as well as by act of law. Indeed, this may also be said of descents themselves, in which an entry or other seisin is required, in order to make a complete title: and

therefore this distribution of titles by our legal writers, into those by descent and by purchase, seems in this respect rather inaccurate, and not marked with sufficient precision: for, as escheats must follow the nature of the seigniory to which they belong, they may vest by either purchase or descent, according as the seigniory is vested. And, though Sir Edward Coke considers the lord by escheat as in some respects the assignee of the last tenant,1 and therefore taking by purchase; yet, on the other hand, the lord is more frequently considered as being ultimus hæres, and therefore taking by descent in a kind of caducary succession.

The law of escheats is founded upon this single principle, that the blood of the person last seised in fee-simple is, by some means or other, utterly extinct and gone; and, since none can inherit his estate but such as are of his blood and consanguinity, it follows, as a regular consequence, that when such blood is extinct, the inheritance itself must fail: the land must become what the feodal writers denominate feudum apertum; and must result back again to the lord of the fee, by whom, or by those whose estate he hath, it was given.

Escheats are frequently divided into those propter defectum sanguinis, and those propter delictum tenentis: the one sort, if the tenant dies without heirs; the other, if his blood be attainted. But both these species may well be comprehended under the first denomination only; for he that is attainted suffers an extinction of his blood, as well as he that dies without relations. The inheritable quality is expunged in one instance, and expires in the other; or, as the doctrine of escheats is very fully expressed in Fleta," "dominus capitalis feodi loco hæredis habetur, quoties per defectum vel delictum extinguitur sanguis tenentis.”

ID., 251-254. By attainder also, for treason or other felony, the blood of the person attainted is so corrupted as to be rendered no longer inheritable.

Great care must be taken to distinguish between for