levied. The reason of which will be stated in Title XXXVIII. Devise. Forfeiture in some Cases. Tit. 3. c. 1. § 32. a 27. Where a person, who is only tenant for life, Creates a levies a fine sur cognizance de droit come ceo, &c., it will operate as a forfeiture of his estate: because it is an attempt to create a greater estate than he can i Inst. 251 b. lawfully convey, and a renunciation of the feudal Gilb.Ten.38. connexion between the tenant and his lord. So if a tenant for life accepts a fine sur cognizance de droit, 9 Rep. 106 b. &c., it is also a forfeiture of his estate for life; for it is a denial of tenure upon two accounts: first, in admitting the reversion to have been in a stranger to convey; and, secondly, in accepting of it himself, to the prejudice of the person in reversion. Abell, 28. If A. be tenant for life, with remainder to B. Smith v. for life, and A. levies a fine to B.; this is a forfeiture of both their estates: for by their own act on record Co. Read. 3. they have denied the reversion to be in the lord; the one by giving, and the other by receiving it. 1 Roll. Ab. 855. 29. "A. was tenant for life, remainder for life to B., Garrett v. remainder in tail to C., remainder to B. in fee. Blizard, B. levied a fine sur cognizance de droit, &c. to a stranger. It was adjudged to be a forfeiture of his estate in remainder for life; so that, after A.'s death, C. might enter, because the fine transferred a fee simple in possession by estoppel, against which he could not aver that he only passed an estate for life in præsenti, with a fee simple expectant on the death of C. without issue; for the fine supposed a prior gift in fee simple, which he could not lawfully make, while the estate for life of A. and the intermediate remainder of C. in tail, were subsisting. 30. But where the person who has the next estate of inheritance joins with the tenant for life in levying a fine, it does not then operate as a forfeiture. Bredon's 1 Vent. 160. 1 Inst. 251 b. 1 Roll. Ab. 852. Pigott v. 1 Inst. 251 b. 31. A. being tenant for life, with remainder in tail to B., they both joined in levying à fine sur cognizance de droit come ceo, &c. to a stranger in fee. It was resolved, that this was neither a discontinuance nor a forfeiture, but that each of the parties to the fine gave that which he might lawfully dispose of; and that the law would construe it to be, first, the grant of the person in remainder, and, afterwards, the grant of the tenant for life. 32. If a tenant for life of a rent or advowson levies a fine of them, it will create a forfeiture; for although in this case the fine passes no more than it lawfully may, yet, being a public and solemn renunciation of the estate for life, in a court of record, it is within the reason of the law, and amounts to a forfeiture. 33. A fine sur concessit, levied by a tenant for life, does not operate as a forfeiture of his estate, because it only transfers such an interest as the tenant for life may lawfully pass, without divesting or displacing the estates in remainder or reversion. 84. Although a fine sur conuzance de droit, &c. levied by a tenant for years, does not create any bar, Tit. 8. c. 2. yet it will operate as a forfeiture of the term; but a .fine sur concessit will not have this effect. $ 50. 2 P. Wms. 146. 3 Atk. 729. Co.Sup.c.11. 35. No fine levied by a cestui que trust for life will be allowed in Chancery to operate as a forfeiture, because it cannot affect the subsequent remainders; and therefore such a fine will, in equity, operate, at most, as a grant of the interest of which the cestui que trust has a power to dispose. 36. If a copyholder levies a fine of his copyhold, it will operate as a forfeiture; and in such a case, no acceptance of rent, or other act done by the lord, will be available to make the estate good. It is, 3 Term R. however, said, in a modern case, that this doctrine is Doe v.Helier, too general; for unless there is a change of posses- 162. sion, the fine will be void against the lord. Estate. 37. It has been shown, that in a fine sur done, A Fine sur Done, Grant, grant, and render, the cognizee is but an instrument, and Render, who has a seisin only for an instant, which is not gives a new sufficient to entitle his wife to dower; yet it been adjudged, that this species of fine operates as a feoffment and re-enfeoffiment, and therefore gives a new estate. has ante, c. 3. § 30. the Descent. § 49. 38. In consequence of this doctrine, if a person, And alters seised of an estate ex parte materna, levies a fine sur done, grant, and render, and takes back an estate to Tit. 29. c. 3. himself and his heirs, the nature of the descent is thereby altered, and the estate will afterwards descend to the heirs ex parte paterna. 39. I. S. being seised of lands ex parte materna, he and his wife levied a fine to I. N. and I. B., and Price v. 1 Salk. 337. they by the same fine granted and rendered the same Carth. 140. lands to the use of the said I. S. and his wife, and the Holt, 253. heirs of their two bodies, remainder to the right heirs of I. S. The husband and wife died without issue and the question was, whether the remainder descended to the heirs on the part of the mother, or on the part of the father. It was argued on the one side, that this seisin of the cognizee was merely fictitious; for if the cognizee had a term for years in the land, it would not be merged: that it was like the case of a surrender of a copyhold into the hands of the lord, who was thereby only a mere instrument: therefore, that nothing was altered by the fine, but the estate remained as before. On the other side it was insisted, that the cognizee could not render the estate, unless he had it in him; and that the grant and render operated as a feoffment and re-enfeoffment. The Court held, that the estate was once in the cognizee, otherwise he could not give it back;. that the grant and render was a conveyance at common law, and made the cognizor a new purchaser, as much as a feoffinent and re-enfeoffment: so that the remainder descended to the heirs on the part of the father. 40. It is observable, that this is the only sort of fine which gives a new estate; for if a person seised ex parte materna levies a fine sur cognizance de droit, &c., and either makes no declaration of the uses of it, or declares it to be to the use of himself and his heirs, the lands will still descend ex parte materna; because it is the old use, which, consisting in trust and confidence, will follow the nature of the land, and will descend as the land would have descended, if no alteration had been made; and it is totally immaterial whether the use be expressly declared on a fine of that kind, or permitted to arise by implication. TITLE XXXV. FINE. CHAP. XIII. What Persons, Estates, and Interests are not barred NOTWITHSTANDING the great force and effect of a fine, yet there are some particular persons, estates, and interests, to which its operation does not extend. 2. By the common law, no laches can be imputed The King. to the King; and therefore no delay or omission on his part, in making a claim, will bar his right. From thence has arisen the maxim, Nullum tempus oc- 1 Inst. 41 b. currit regi; for the law supposes his Majesty to be always busied for the public good, and therefore that he has not leisure to assert his rights within the time prescribed for other persons. It follows, from this |