The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-29 00:00:00

his being a party' to the sui:istitnte or by a &TA-
rate deed, without oNaining from him an
actual conveyance Oi his cswe. if the concur.
rence should be
.sigtilfied by a Acparate dced,AVA
think it advisable that it should not he allowed
to the concurring party to impose any terms
the tenant in tail, as the neeessitv of seeing win:—
:her he had complied with thcse terms would
then be avoided. This will nit prevent the
parent or other benefleial owner from requiring
the estate to be settled in a reasonable manner
for the benefit of the family, as he will always
have it in his power to do this. by keeping. back
the deed cl concurrence until he is satisfied that
die estate his been setiit,•n i 5, stub manner a.s he
has required. I f the first. benelicid owner should
be a married woman, we leQoininend that her
husband should . also be a coneurcieg patty, and
that as she will part with no cJate her concur-
rence should be given without a separate exa-
mination, and as if she were a femme sole.

•ri
111(1

deviation from the present'rule will not. be so
great as may at. fir:A sight appear, for in the ma-
jority of cases the tenant of the imsnediate eta:c
of freehold and the first bencaill owner 1%41 he
the same person. We have not thonght it ad-
visable to require the congurrero.-

..-,-r-;

fir it sellitlris; if ever, happens that
dower is set out by metes and bounds ; and if
such an estate does occur, her concurrence would

have only a partial operation, as the estate i 3
confined to a part of the lands entailed.
By the new rule which we have here recom-
mended, an efficient check will be imposed on
alienation by tenants in tail in every case in
which it can be advisable for the preservation of
estates in families,-- and it is preferable, in our
opinion, to the present rule requiring- a eon-
. veyance from the tenant of the freehold ; inat;-
much as the first beneficial owner may, by being
made merely a consenting, and not a conveyin,-
party, signify his concurrence without affecting
his powers or contingent rights or interests, and
without letting in the incumbranecs of the re-
mainder man, which without due caution are the
consequences of the present rule; and inastnuclt
as the person whose concurrence is necessary
must at all times be known or can be readily
ascertained, for in every case, 'except where he
takes under a power or as tenant by curtesy, it
will only be necessary to refer to the deed or v. is
by which the estate tail was created, and in -the
expected case, which will he of rare occurrence,
there will be no difficulty in ascertaining the
perssn. The certainty of the person who is to
he the concurring party, will add to the security
of titles, and will in a great measure relieve them
from the mischiefs consequential on the present
• rule.

N'Ve arc aware that the new rule, as well as the
present rule, is open to the objection, that it may
place a tenant in tail at the metcy of a rapacious
concurring party, but this is unavoidable where
the concurring party is to exercise a discretion ;
we think, however, that abuses are less likely to
occur under the new rule. than under the !re-
sent rule, because, generally speaking, the rrst
beneficial owner is connected by blood with the
tenant in tail, and is in most cases his parent,
and in no case will a stranger claiming by alie
don be a concurring party.
As the consequence of the new rule will be to
make the power of withholding the concurrence
personal to the first beneficial owner and not in-
&dent to his estate, it will be necessary to pro-
vide against the difficult questions which might
otherwise arise in equity, with respect to con-
tracts fsit withholding concurrence, and to the
:•oneurrence beii!!! in any case considered as a
breach of trii,t, -We think that this would be
best accomplished, by declaring that any contract
by the copcurring party to withhold his concur-
rence should be merely, void AFlta Court of