Star.
London, England, 1829-06-26 00:00:00

complished, by declaring that any contract by the coo..
cursing party to withhold his concurrence should be•
merely void, and that a Court of Equity should 'not
interfere to restrain him from concurring, nor treat his
concurrence as a breach of trust.
It may be objected to the new rule, that it will not be
justan-allavut tenant for life. who has alio the ultimate
reversion in fee expectant on intermediate estates tail,
and 'who has aliened 'both his estates, to continue the
coiceirriet piiitY. 'However, as the ultimate reversion
can be of little or no value, more particularly if the
'handball proposed by us in that part of our Report
which relates to the Limitations of Actions should be
adopted, end as the protecting it from being barred
without the consent of the alienee, during the life of
the tenant for life, cannot counterbalance the advantage
. - arising from the certainty which will be introduced, as
to the person wko is to be the concurring party, and as,
after the establishment of the new rule, the alienee will
regulate his purchase accordingly, we have not thought
it necessary to make any special provisions to meet this
case. .. •
The power, which a tenant in tail in remainder has
of acquiring a base fee by means of a fine, is open to
the objection that it enables an extravagant youth to
anticipate his expectations upon very disadvantageous
terms, and is open to the still more serious objection,
that the estate may be palmed upon an innocent puts
chaser as an estate in fee simple,. its origin being in
course of time lost sight of, and at last the issue in tail
may fail, and the remainder-man may at a remote period
recover the estate. This last objection will be removed
if the alterations proposed by us in that part of our
Report which relates to the Limitations of Actions are
. adopted. On the other band, there are cases in which
this poser has operated beneficially; it has afforded
support to a tenant in tail in remainder where he has
had to deal with a tenant for life who was rapacious,
or who has refused altogether to concur in barring the
entail, and a tenant in tail in remainder, having the
means of making a provision for himself. though an
imperfect one, has often made a better bargain with
the tenant for life than be could otherwise have done.
We. therefore, under all the circumstances, consider it
advisable to allow a tenant in tail, where there is a prior
beneficial owner, without the concurrence of that
owner, to bar his estate tail, and acquire a base fee in
the same manner as a tenant in tail in remainder can
now do by means of a fine. This will render it neces
miry to give the tenant in tail after he has acquired a
base fee a power, by means of the substitute for fines
and recoveries, to make a disposition fur expanding the
base fee into a tee simple, as he can now do under the
existing law by means of a recovery. It will also be
necessary to make the like provision for expanding base
• fees. existing at the time when fines and recoveries are
abolished.
We propose that whenever a legal estate tail only, or
a legal estate tail and remainders over, shall have been
barred by means of the substitute, and the fee thereby
acquired shall have been conveyed by way of mortgage,
or in any other manner so as to leave an equity in the
person barring the estate tail, such equity should be
vested in such person for an estate of the same extent
as the estate which he acquired at law by the substitute.
and we also propose that. by means of the substitute,
equitable estates tail and remainders thereon should be
barred, and equitable base fees should be expanded, so
a- to leave the la w in these respects as it now is, under
:Aties ani recoveri s.

In taking into consideration what would• be the best
mode of barring entails on the abolition of fines and re-
crneii-s. it appeared to us desirable, that every facility
should be afforded to the tenant in tail of unfettering
his lands, and that the substitute should be available at
any time of the year, and should not be incumbered
with formalities. as there would then be le., liability to
eror, and title. would be relieved from the doubts
which frequently occur, as to whether limitations are
in tail ni in lee, and we incline to the .opinion, that
every disposition by a tenant in tail should, but in every
care with the concurrence of the prior beneficial owner,
if there should be one, be made by any cvnveyance, to
have the same effect as if made by a tenant in fee sim-
ple, and that in every case where there should be no
prior beneficial owner, the tenant in tail should have
the full poser of disposition by will, as if he were te•
sant in tee simple. Strange as the proposition to enable
a tenant in tail to devise by will may at first sight ap-
pear, it is only enabling him to do directly what he
may do indirectly, by previously going through a for-
mal process. the difference between the two modes
being matter of mere form and not of substance. De-
sirable as it would be trot to incumber the substitute
with formalities, yet there is an advantage in having it
inrolled, because the issue in tail, and .the remainder-
men will then have the means of st,certaintng whether
they are barred or not, and thereby litigation may be
avoided, as is frequently the case at present. in conse-
quence of the recovery being a- matter of record, and
particularly when the conveyance to make the tenant
to the recipe is in:oiled. We therefore think it ad-
,eit-able that the Substitute should be inrolled in the
Court of Chancery within a limited time. and that any
deed by which the beneficial owner shall give his ct
cunerce separately from the substitute should be in•
rolled at the same time; and we recommend that the
inenlment of the substitute should extend to every case.
except that of a lease for twenty-one years in possession.
the inrolment of which, ne think, sh olds for the pro-
tection of lessees, be dispensed with. As the inrolinent
of a will within a limited time alter the death of a tes-
tator. solely for the purpose of barring an entail, is
novel. and likely to be omitted in many cases, unless
there was a general law enforcing the inrolment of all
wills, we have thought it advisable for the present to
abandon the idea of allowing tenants in tail to untetter
their lands by will. If a general registry should be
established, and all deeds and wills should be regis-
tered without distinction, it would be then unnecessary
to incumber the substitute for fine and recoveries with
any peculiar formalities, and a tenant in tail might then
have a power of disposition by will as well as by deed.
It'usay be said, that by giving a tenant in tail
power to bar the remainders over at any time of th,.
year, the rights of the remainder-man might in sonic
measure be prejudiced, and therefore that the substitute
should be available only at those periods when a re-
covery can, according to the present law, be suffered,
vs that the remainder-man might have the benefit of
the chance of the tenant in tail dying without issue be-
fate he his availed himself if the substitute ; but as this
event can only occur in very few cases, the chance of
the remainder-man is not worth taking into account,
and is not to be set up •is competition with the advan-
tage of not incumberiag the substitute with any restric-
lion avto time. The rule requiring that a recovery
should tie 'offered only at a particular period, is purely
technical. and was not fitted with a view to protect the
reminder-man, and is wholly inapplicable to the sub-
stitute; we therefore recommend that a tenant in till
should heave the power of availing himself of the sub-
stitute at any titan.
.- It it should W tbOght advise tile, upon the abolition