of birth, and their issue, No. 2. In default of these, all the daughters together, Margaret and Charlotte Stiles, or their issue, No. 3. On failure of the descendants of John Stiles, his father Geoffrey (being his nearest lineal ancestor in the preferable line) is admitted, No. 4. Then the issue of his father, viz. first, Francis Stiles, the eldest brother of the whole blood, or his issue, No. 5; then Oliver Stiles and the other whole brothers respectively, in order of birth, or their issue, No. 6; then the sisters of the whole blood all together, Bridget and Alice Stiles, or their issue, No. 7; then the son of Geoffrey (the paternal brother of the halfblood), No. 8, or his issue; and the paternal sisters of the half-blood, No. 9, or their issue. In default of them, George Stiles, the paternal grandfather, is admitted, No. 10, and then his issue, viz. first, his issue of the whole blood with John, No. 11, then his issue of the half-blood with John, No. 12. In default of these, Walter Stiles, the paternal grandfather's father, is admitted, No. 13. Then the issue of Walter, viz. first, his issue of the whole blood with John, No. 14, then his issue of the half-blood, No. 15. In default of these, Richard Stiles, the paternal grandfather's paternal grandfather, is admitted, No. 16, or his issue, No. 17, and so on, in the paternal line of Walter Stiles, in infinitum. In failure of this (this is, supposing the decease of Richard, and of all his maternal and paternal ancestors, and the failure of their issue both of the whole and of the half-blood,) we are next to resort to the maternal line of Walter Stiles, rather than of a nearer male ancestor; and the paternal grandfather's paternal grandmother, Ann Godfrey (according to the maiden name), No. 18, will consequently be the person next entitled to succeed, and so on in the maternal line of Walter Stiles, in infinitum. In failure of which we are to resort to maternal line of George Stiles; and the paternal grandfather's mother, Christian Smith, No. 19, will be the person next entitled, and then her issue of the half-blood to John, No. 20. Then the paternal grandfather's maternal grandfather, William Smith, No. 21; and then his issue, No. 22;

and so on in the paternal line of Christian Smith, in infinitum. On failure of which, we are to resort to her maternal line; and the paternal grandfather's maternal grandmother, Jane King, No. 23, will be the person next entitled, and so on in the maternal line of Christian Smith, in infinitum. On failure of which we are to resort to the maternal line of Geoffrey Stiles; and the paternal grandmother, Cecilia Kempe, No. 24, will be the person next entitled; and then her issue of the half-blood to John, No. 25. Then the paternal grandmother's father, Luke Kempe, No. 26; then his issue of the whole blood to John, No. 27. Then his issue of the half-blood to John, No. 28. Then the paternal grandmother's paternal grandfather, Thomas Kempe, No. 29. Then his issue, No. 30, and so on in the paternal line of Luke Kempe, in infinitum. In failure of which we are to resort to his maternal line; and the paternal grandmother's paternal grandmother, Sarah Browne, No. 31, will be the person next entitled; and so on in the maternal line of Luke Kempe, in infinitum. On failure of which we are to resort to the maternal line of Cecilia Kempe; and the paternal grandmother's mother, Frances Holland, No. 32, will be the person next entitled. Then her issue of the half-blood to John, No. 33. Then the paternal grandmother's maternal grandfather, Charles Holland, No. 34; then his issue, No. 35; and so on in the paternal line of Frances Holland, in infinitum. In failure of which we are to resort to the maternal line of Frances Holland; and the paternal grandmother's maternal grandmother, Mary Wilson, No. 36, will be the person next entitled; and so on in the maternal line of Frances Holland, in infinitum. In failure of which, the paternal blood of John Stiles entirely failing, recourse must then, and not before, be had to his maternal relations, or the blood of the Bakers, Nos. 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47; the Bates's, No. 48; the Willis's, Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52; the Carters, No. 53; the Thorpes, Nos. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60; the Bishops, No. 61; the Whites, Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65;

and the Wards, No. 66, in the same regular successive order as in the paternal line.

We have thus seen how land is acquired by descent in fee simple. But before we conclude the chapter, it will be proper to notice some miscellaneous points of law connected with this title.

1. We may remark, that in order to make the title complete, where the estate descended is one in possession, the heir is required to make entry on the land; for until then he is said to have seisin in law only, and not in deed; and is incompetent to bring any action of trespass for injuries committed to the land (7). If the estate be one in expectancy, he has of course no right of entry until the particular interest determines: but if it be a reversion or remainder immediately expectant on an estate for years, the possession of the particular tenant operates, upon a principle before explained, as that of the heir; whose seisin is in that case considered as a seisin in deed, and not in law only (r). The distinction, however, between these kinds of seisin, as regards the heir, has recently lost much of its importance-which chiefly resulted from this consideration, viz. that until entry he could not become the root of a future descent: for this is a capacity which can no longer in any case attach to him, as, by the new provision of the Inheritance Act, the purchaser is now the only root from which descent can be traced.

2. It may be useful to explain the phrase which sometimes occurs in the books of breaking the descent. It is to be observed, then, that the estate which a man has acquired by descent, retains in his hands its former quality of descending only to the blood of the same purchaser, or quasi purchaser, so that, on decease of the owner, none of his relations on the mother's side can ever be entitled to succeed, supposing the estate to have descended to him in

(q) Bac. Ab. Trespass (C.); Browning v. Beston, Plowd. 142; Goodtitle v. Newman, 3 Wils. 516.

(r) Co. Litt. 15 a; Doe v. Keen, 7 T. R. 390; Doe v. Whichelo, 8 T. R. 213; et vide sup. p. 321.

the paternal line, nor vice versâ any relation on the father's side, if it came in the maternal line; except only in the case of a relation who, being heir in one of these lines, happens to belong to the other also,—a case which may occur when the owner's parents have been connected by consanguinity. In this respect the title by descent differs remarkably from that by purchase; for by the latter [the estate acquires a new inheritable quality, and is descendible to the owner's blood in general,] that is, first to those of the paternal, and then to those of the maternal line. And from this it follows, that if a person who has acquired an estate by descent conveys it to a new purchaser, the line of descent is broken: and even if that purchaser conveys it back again to him, the interruption still continues; for the former owner will then hold it as by purchase, and not as by descent, and will therefore be able to transmit it to his heirs on either side. Thus, if a man seised of lands as heir on the part of his mother (and which consequently no relation on the father's side can, as such, inherit), conveys them to another, and afterwards obtains a reconveyance of them, to hold to him and his heirs, and then dies without issue, his heirs on the part of his father shall inherit, and in preference to those on the mother's side (s). But a mere alteration in the quality or circumstances of an estate will not break the descent; and therefore if parceners make partition of their land, they are still in of their respective shares by inheritance, though those shares are no longer held in coparcenary, but in severalty.

3. The heir is liable, out of an estate taken by descent in fee simple, to be charged with the debts of the ancestor from whom it descended (t). This liability has always attached to him in the courts of the common law, in respect

(s) Co. Litt. 12 b; Doe v. Morgan, 7 T. R. 105; 1 Prest. Est. 420, 458, 459. And in like manner the descent will now be broken where a person who took by descent makes a conveyance (subsequent to 31st VOL. I.

December, 1833), although an estate should be limited to himself by the same conveyance. (See the Inheritance Act, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 106, s. 3.) (t) See Bushby v. Dixon, 3 Barn. & Cress. 298.

FF

of the ancestor's special obligations, (or, in legal language, those accruing by specialty); which consist of two kinds, either matters of record (such as judgments and the like (u), recorded in the courts of justice), or deeds, (that is, contracts under seal): but with a distinction as to the latter, between deeds in which the ancestor has bound himself and his heirs eo nomine, and those in which the heirs are not bound; for to these last the liability of the heir in the courts of the common law does not extend, though there is a remedy, as we shall presently see, in equity. Nor is he liable, whatever the kind of obligation may be, to be charged as of his own proper debt; but only so far as he has taken, in his character of heir, an estate of his ancestor sufficient (to some extent at least) to satisfy the debt; which sufficient estate is called, in law, assets, from the French word assez, enough (x). The assets which descend to an heir, however, may consist either of legal or equitable estate; and though equitable interests are not in general noticed in the common law courts, yet in this case it is otherwise; for by the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. II. c. 3), s. 10, if any cestui que trust shall die, leaving a trust in fee simple to descend to his heir, the trust shall be assets by descent, and the heir liable to be charged with the same, in the same manner as if it were an estate at common law.

But though the heir was always subject to this liability for the specialty debts of his ancestor (to the extent at least of the legal estate inherited), it did not formerly extend to a devisee, or person taking the estate of the deceased by devise under his will; and therefore to protect creditors from such devises as may tend to their prejudice, it was provided, by statute 3 & 4 William and Mary, c. 14, called the Statute of Fraudulent Devises,-repealed, but with a re-enactment of this provision, by 11 Geo. IV.

(u) See Harbert's case, 3 Rep. 12 b.

(x) 2 Bl. Com. 243, 244. The

law on the subject of the heir's liability is fully stated, 2 Saund. by Wms. 7, n. (4).