suppose that A's part was designed to devolve on B; and as the testator has expressly given it to A in fee, liable only to be divested upon the death, not of A only, but of B also, under the age of thirty, it would be illogical to admit the implication of cross-limitations, as in the preceding instance; and accordingly, it is believed that A's part upon his death would devolve upon his representatives, unless and until B also should die under the age prescribed, (3 Lom. Dig. 376-7; 2 Jarm. Wills, c. 43, p, 482.)

This reasoning and explanation, therefore, will apply in Virginia to every estate so limited that, as the law was on the 7th October, 1776, the same would have been an estate-tail, all such limitations being converted with us into estates in fee-simple (V. C. 1873, c, 112, § 9; Ante p. 393); and the limitations thereon, which formerly would have been remainders, being expressly declared by statute to be good as executory limitations, if they would have been good as such, if limited upon an original fee-simple. (V. C. 1873, c. 112, § 10; Ante p. 393.)

Hence, a devise to A and B, and the heirs of their bodies, to take as tenants in common (or indeed, in Virginia, as joint-tenants), with remainder in case they should both die without issue, to Z in fee, being with us a fee-simple in A and B, with an executory limitation over to Z in fee, to take effect upon the sole contingency that both A and B shall die without issue, there seems to be no reason to doubt that, if either A or B die without issue, his part would pass to his heirs or devisees, unless and until B also should die in like manner, without issue (3 Lom. Dig. 377).

And now at length we have reached the end of the discussion of the law touching real property; a title involving very important subjects of ownership; to the people of Virginia, and of the greater portion. of these States, the most important in the aggregate of all others; whilst the principles which regulate it are amongst the most subtle and abstruse, and (having regard to the present state of society), are the most artificial with which the legal profession has occasion to deal.

The system of feuds has left upon this department of the law an impression so indelible, that he who would comprehend its genius and spirit must survey the large field which it embraces from a standpoint far removed in time from the present, and at least

as far in respect of social organization. And hence arises much of whatever embarrassment besets the student's path in this portion of his course. Those doctrines which may appear arbitrary, and if not positively repugnant to reason, at least without its sanction, will commonly be found to be well justified by the circumstances of their origin, when we trace them back to those mediæval periods when the relation of lord and vassal, predominating over all other relations, moulded and colored both the interests and the sentiments of those nations whence we derive the bulk of our jurisprudence touching the subject of landed property.

The laws of every people are materially influenced by its disposition and character, and by the events which compose its history; but true as this proposition is in general, it is in a peculiar and emphatic sense true of the land-law of England and her colonies; and an acquaintance with English history and manners prior to, and for six centuries after the Norman Conquest, will be found an effective auxiliary in acquiring a mastery of the doctrines which control the ownership and enjoyment of lands throughout the United States, and especially in Virginia.

It will be remembered that the outline, as it has been traced, of this copious topic, consists of only four great divisions, which have been successively explored, namely:

(1), The nature and several kinds of real property; (2), The tenures whereby it is holden;

(3), The estate or interest which may be had therein; and

(4), The title thereto, and how acquired and lost.

These divisions we have followed in considerable detail, into minute sub-divisions, so as to advert, in their proper connection, to most of the propositions which a practitioner of the law is likely to have special occasion for; or if any are omitted, the sources are for the most part indicated which afford the means of further investigation.

In a system so extensive, and in many of its particulars so foreign to common observation, frequent and thoughtful reviews of the outline presented in the analytical table of contents, prefixed to this volume, are requisite, and the student is earnestly counselled by no means to pretermit them.

Sir William Blackstone concludes his luminous, but

very limited exposition of the subject of the law of real property with words which the present writer would fain adopt and make his own:

"I cannot presume," says he, "that I have always been thoroughly intelligible to such of my readers as were before strangers even to the very terms of art which I have been obliged to make use of; though whenever those have first occurred, I have generally attempted a short explication of their meaning. These are indeed the more numerous on account of the different languages which our law has at different periods been taught to speak; the difficulty arising from which will insensibly diminish by use and familiar acquaintance. And, therefore, I shall close this branch of our inquiries with the words of Sir Edward Coke (Prom. 1 Inst. xli): Albeit the student shall not in any one day, do what he can, reach to the full meaning of all that is here laid down, yet let him no way discourage himself, but proceed; for on some other day, in some other place (or perhaps upon a second perusal of the same), his doubts will be probably removed."" (2 Bl. Com. 383.)

6

INDEX.