Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/347

 Ch. 20. intrument declaring that intention was allowed to be binding in equity. But cetuy que ue could not at common law aliene the legal interet of the lands, without the concurrence of his feoffee ; to whom he was accounted by law to be only tenant at ufferance. Ues were not liable to any of the feodal burthens; and particularly did not echeat for felony or other defect of blood; for echeats, &c, are the conequence of tenure, and ues are held of nobody: but the land itelf was liable to echeat, whenever the blood of the feoffee to ues was extinguihed by crime or by defect; and the lord (as was before oberved) might hold it dicharged of the ue. 6. No wife could be endowed, or huband have his curtey, of a ue : for no trut was declared for their benefit, at the original grant of the etate. And therefore it became cutomary, when mot etates were put in ue, to ettle before marriage ome joint etate to the ue of the huband and wife for their lives; which was the original of modern jointures. 7. A ue could not be extended by writ of elegit, or other legal proces, for the debts of cetuy que ue. For, being merely a creature of equity, the common law, which looked no farther than to the peron actually eied of the land, could award no proces againt it.

is impracticable, upon our preent plan, to purue the doctrine of ues through all the refinements and niceties, which the ingenuity of the times (abounding in ubtile diquiitions) deduced from this child of the imagination; when once a departure was permitted from the plain imple rules of property etablihed by the antient law. Thee principal outlines will be fully ufficient to hew the ground of lord Bacon's complaint, that this coure of proceeding "was turned to deceive many of their jut and reaonable rights. A man, that had caue to ue for land, knew not againt whom to bring his action, or who was the owner Rh