Price v. Price, 2 Vel. 234. Sands v. fuperadding words of limitation made the word "heir " a word of purchase. § 53. Where a perfon on his marriage settled a leafehold eftate to trustees, to the fole and separate use of his intended wife for life, for her jointure, and from and after her decease, to the use of the heirs of the body of the wife, by the husband to be begotten, and for want of fuch iffue, to the ufe of the hufband and his heirs for ever. Sir Jofeph Jekyll held, that on the wife's death, the leasehold vested in the heirs of her body, as purchasers. TITLE XXXII. DEE D. j 1. CHAP. XXVI The fame Subject continued.-Of Perpetuities. Perpetuities difcouraged. 7. Hiftory of Settlements. 11. Eftates may be rendered unalienable for Lives in being and 21 Years after. 13. This Rule is applied to fpringing and fifting Ufes. 16. And alfo to Ujes arifing from Appointments. 18. But not to Remainders after Efiates Tail. 21. An unborn Perfon may be 23. And a vefted Remainder - 27. Thefe Rules applicable to De- 29. Perpetuities created by Act of Section 1. difcouraged. Ante ch. 1. WE have feen that by the introduction of the Perpetuities feudal law into England, all real property was rendered unalienable, and that by degrees the proprietors of land acquired a power of alienation. And this power was found to be fo beneficial to the country, that the Judges have for many centuries established it as a rule, that real property fhould in no cafe be rendered unalienable, or as they ufually expreffed it, that perpetuities fhould not be allowed. And this rule being founded on principles of general policy, is adopted by courts of equity in as full an extent, as by courts of law. 3 Cha. Ca. 31: i Vern. 164. § 2. Thus, Tit. 1. f. 60. Dyer 23 a. pl. 12. 3 Cha. Ca. 19. Tit. 2. ch. 1. § 2. Thus, it has been stated, that an unlimited power of alienation is an incident fo infeparably annexed to an estate in fee fimple, that it cannot be restrained by any provifo or condition what ever. § 3. It was determined in the reign of Henry 8. for the fame reason, that no remainder could be limited over after a previous difpofition of the fee fimple: for if fuch remainder was allowed, the estate in fee would become unalienable. § 4. The ftatute De Donis Conditionalibus, was procured by the nobility, for the purpose of rendering their poffeffions unalienable. But the Judges, by means of thofe fictitious proceedings, called fines and recoveries, of which an account will be given hereafter, effectually defeated the operation of this Tit. 2. ch. 2. ftatute, and also laid it down as a rule, that a tenant in tail cannot be restrained from barring his estate in this manner, by any provifo or condition whatever. f. 44 Vide Tit. 35, 35. Mainwaring v. Baxter, 5 Vef. Jun. 458. § 5. Any other mode of restraining a tenant in tail from alienation, will also be deemed void, as tending to a perpetuity. § 6. Lands were limited by deed to A. for ninetynine years, if he fhould fo long live, remainder to trustees to preserve contingent remainders, remainder to trustees for a term of one thousand years, remainder to the firft and other fons of A. in tail male. With a provifo that the trustees should, after any contract or agreement made by any of the persons taking eftates under the deed touching the alienation of the premises, but before any alienation should be made, or any act done which might prevent the premises from going according to the limitations aforefaid, by fale or mortgage, raife 5000l. and pay the fame to the persons who would be entitled to the premises, in cafe the perfon contracting to alien were actually dead. The Master of the Rolls faid, it was a mere device to prevent alienation, and therefore he declared that the trufts of the term, as tending to a perpetuity, and being inconfiftent with the rights of the several perfons to whom estates tail were limited by the deed, were void, and of no effect. History of Settlements. .1. f. 3. § 7. Mr. Butler has observed, that the first attempt at a fettlement was, the creation of an estate in fee fimple conditional. This had two effects, that of fufpending the abfolute power of alienation, till the birth of issue, and that of preserving the inheritance in a particular line of fucceffion. When these eftates were converted into eftates tail by the ftatute De Donis, a fimple intail of the land was fufficient to preserve it in the family of the fettlor. Upon the introduction of fines and recoveries, fettlements of this kind were found to be ineffectual. But when husbands feifed Vide Tit. 36. in right of their wives, and women, feifed of the gift of their husbands, were prohibited from alienating those estates, it became ufual to limit the husband's estate eftate to the husband and wife, and the heirs of the body of the wife, by the husband, and to limit the wife's eftate to the husband and wife, and the heirs of the husband by the wife; by which means the eftate was fecured to the parents during their lives, and to the iffue, against the act of either parent. Nothing but the concurrent act of both parties could deprive the iffue of the estate. It was protected against the caprice or extravagance of one of the parties, fo long as the other refufed to co-operate in unfettering the intail, while there was a provifion for unforeseen events, by their co-operation during their joint lives. And during the life of the furviving parent, the fame effects might be produced, by the co-operation of that parent and the iffue; and after the deceafe of both parents, the eftate was restored to the iffue with a complete power of alienation. § 8. The laft mode of making fettlements, and which still continues to be practifed, was to limit the estate to the intended hufband for life, remainder to the intended wife for life, remainder to the first and other fons of the marriage, fucceffively in tail; by which means the eftate was rendered unalienable until the eldest fon-of the marriage attained the age of twenty-one years, when he could join with his father or mother in fuffering a common recovery, by which the estate tail limited to fuch eldest son, and all the fubfequent estates, were barred; and a new fee fimple acquired. § 9. There |