Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/345

 Ch. 20. will. But we have een how this evaion was cruhed in it's infancy, by tatute 15 Ric. II. c. 5. with repect to religious houes.

, the idea being once introduced, however fraudulently, it afterwards continued to be often innocently, and ometimes very laudably, applied to a number of civil purpoes: particularly as it removed the retraint of alienations by will, and permitted the owner of lands in his lifetime to make various deignations of their profits, as prudence, or jutice, or family convenience, might from time to time require. Till at length, during our long wars in France and the ubequent civil commotions between the houes of York and Lancater, ues grew almot univeral: through the deire that men had (when their lives were continually in hazard) of providing for their children by will, and of ecuring their etates from forfeitures; when each of the contending parties, as they became uppermot, alternately attainted the other. Wherefore about the reign of Edward IV, (before whoe time, lord Bacon remarks, there are not ix caes to be found relating to the doctrine of ues) the courts of equity began to reduce them to omething of a regular ytem.

it was held that the chancery could give no relief, but againt the very peron himelf intruted for cetuy que ue, and not againt his heir or alienee. This was altered in the reign of Henry VI, with repect to the heir ; and afterwards the ame rule, by a parity of reaon, was extended to uch alienees as had purchaed either without a valuable conideration, or with an expres notice of the ue. But a purchaor for a valuable conideration, without notice, might hold the land dicharged of any trut or confidence. And alo it was held, that neither the king or queen, on account of their dignity royal, nor any corporation aggregate, on account of it's limited capacity , Rh