married a second time, and suffered a recovery. The daughter of the first husband entered for the forfeiture. But it was determined, that although this case was within the letter of the statute, yet it was not within the intention of it, the remainder being limited from the heirs of the husband to a stranger. 26. A jointure limited to a woman in fee is not within the statute 11 Hen. VII. for the same reason. 27. These statutes were originally construed to extend to a fine levied by the husband and wife; for Lord Coke has stated a case where a man seised of lands in fee, levied a fine to the use of himself for life, and after to the use of his wife, and of the heirs male of her body by him begotten, for her jointure, and had issue male; afterwards he and his wife levied a fine, and suffered a common recovery. The husband and wife died; the issue male entered by force of the statute 11 Hen. VII.; and it was holden by the justices of assize, that the entry of the issue male was lawful. 28. The doctrine laid down in the above case has however been contradicted by a more modern determination. 29. A father, in consideration of the marriage of his son, and of 200l. portion, covenanted to convey lands to the use of the son and his wife, and of the heirs of the body of the wife, remainder to his own right heirs. A conveyance was made accordingly, and the husband and wife joined in levying a fine of the lands. It was resolved, first, that this was a jointure within the intent of the statute, although part of the consideration was money paid by the father of the wife to the father of the husband. 2dly. That the fine did not operate as a forfeiture, either within the words or intention of the statute; for the wife was not sole, nor was the alienation with an after-taken husband; and the object of the statute was only to provide against the disherison of the heirs of the husband contrary to his intention. 30. The right of entry which is given by the stat. 11 Hen. VII. is not confined to the heir of the husband, but is extended to the person to whom the inheritance is to go after the decease of the woman, whether he be the heir of the husband, or a stranger deriving under the heir of the husband. Case, 31. Thus, where Sir Richard Bridges made a feoff. Brown's ment of lands to trustees, on condition that they 3 Rep. 50. should give back the same to him and his wife, and Lynch v. Spencer, to the heirs of their two bodies begotten, remainder s. C. Cro. to the right heirs of Sir Richard, which was accord. Eliz. 513. ingly done. Sir Richard had issue by his wife a son, named Anthony, and died. Anthony, in the lifetime of his mother, conveyed the lands by fine to Sir G. Browne in fee; the wife afterwards made a lease for three lives, not warranted by the statute 32 Hen. VIII., whereupon Sir G. Brown entered ; and the question was, whether his entry was lawful within the statute 11 Hen. VII. It was resolved that the entry of Sir G. Brown was lawful, because he was the person who had the immediate right to the inheritance after the death of the wife. 32. By the 8th and 9th sections of the statute Lincoln Col. 11 Hen. VII. it is provided, that it shall not extend Case, 3 Rep. 58. to any recovery to be had with the heirs next inheritable to the woman; or where the person next in remainder consents to the same; provided such consent appear on record. Jure Uxoris. 33. By the common law, if a husband seised of Estates held lands in right of his wife, had levied a fine of them 1 Inst. 326 a. $731. 1 Inst. 326 a Greneley's Case, 8 Rep. 71. Beaumont's Rep. 139. without her concurrence, it operated as a discontinuance; by which means the wife was barred of her entry, after the death of her husband, and was obliged to bring her writ of cui in vita: and therefore, Littleton says, the Judges would not permit a man to levy a fine alone of his wife's estate. 34. This produced a clause in the stat. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 28. § 6. by which it is enacted, "That no fine, feoffment, or other act or acts thereafter to be made, suffered, or done by the husband only, of any manors, &c. being the inheritance or freehold of his wife, during the coverture between them, shall in any wise be or make any discontinuance thereof, or be prejudicial or hurtful to the said wife, or to her heirs, or to such as shall have right, title, or interest to the same, by the death of such wife or wives: but the same wife and her heirs, and such other to whom such right shall appertain, after her decease, shall and may then lawfully enter into all such manors, &c.; any such fine, feoffment, or other act to the contrary notwithstanding; fines levied by the husband and wife, whereunto the said wife is party and privy, only except.". 36. This act having been made to suppress a wrong, and to give the injured party a more speedy remedy than what the common law afforded, it has been construed liberally. So that where lands were 2 Inst. 681. given to a husband and wife, and the heirs of their two bodies, and the husband alone levied a fine thereof, and died; the entry of the wife was adjudged to be lawful; although the words of the act are, "being the inheritance or freehold of the wife ;" whereas in this case the lands were as well the inheritance and freehold of the husband as of the wife. 37. Where husband and wife are joint purchasers Dyer, 162. in tail, remainder to the wife in fee, and the husband alone levies a fine, and dies, this is an alienation within the statute. pl. 48. 38. Lord Coke says, if a husband cause a præcipe 1 Inst. 326 a. quod reddat upon a feint title to be brought against him and his wife, and suffers a recovery without any voucher, and execution is had against him and his wife, yet this is helped by the statute; for this is the act of the husband, and the words of the statute are, made, suffered, or done.” 39. Although the King be not named in this act, 2 Inst. 681. yet he is bound by it as well as a subject. So that if a husband alone levies a fine of his wife's land to the King, still the wife may enter after the death of her husband. 40. If the wife dies before entry, her issue may 11ast. 326 a. enter; and if she has no issue, then the person in remainder or reversion may enter, by the very words of the statute. Case, 41. When recoveries were established as common Estates Tail granted by assurances, the Judges held that every kind of estate the Crown tail, whether created by a subject or by the Crown, for Services. Dyer, 32 a. was barrable by a common recovery; as also all such Wiseman's remainders over, and reversions, as were vested in any private persons. And even where the ultimate reversion was vested in the Crown, it was fully established that a common recovery would bar the issue in tail, and all intermediate remainders between the estate tail and the reversion vested in the Crown: for otherwise a perpetuity might have been created, by limiting the ultimate reversion to the Crown. 42. By the stat. 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 20. reciting that where divers of the King's progenitors, and especially the King himself, had given and granted, 1 or otherwise provided to his and their subjects, manors, &c. to them and to the heirs male of their bodies, or to the heirs of their bodies; minding at the time of such gifts not only to prefer and advance presently the donees, but also their heirs in blood of their bodies, according to the limitations of the said gifts, to the intent that recompence for the service of such donees should not only be a benefit for their own persons, but a continual profit and commodity to and for their heirs coming of their bodies, whereby such heirs should have in special memory and daily remembrance the profit that they had and took by the service of their ancestors, done to the kings of the realm, and thereby be the better encouraged to do like service to their sovereign lord. And forasmuch as sundry such donees in tail and their heirs had suffered, and daily suffered, by their consents, untrue and feigned recoveries to be had against them with common voucher or otherwise of manors, &c. so given, granted, or provided in tail, by the King or his progenitors as aforesaid, to the intent by fraud, covin, and untrue means, not only to bind and defeat their heirs, inheritable by the limitation of such gifts, whereby questions and diversities of opinions had risen, whether such feigned and untrue recoveries against such tenants in tail, by their own consent, of lands, &c. whereof the reversion or remainder was in the King, at the time of such recoveries had, should, after the death of the tenant in tail, bind the heirs in tail or not. 43. It is enacted by the second section of this statute, “That no such feigned recovery thereafter to be had by assent of parties against any such tenant or tenants in tail of any lands, &c. whereof the reversion or remainder, at the time of such |