It was determined that the reversioner should have another period of five years, from the death of infra, c. 12. the tenant for life, to make his claim; for in this case two distinct rights accrued to him; the first upon the forfeiture which the tenant for life committed by levying the fine, and the second by the acquisition of the reversion, in consequence of the death of the tenant for life. 31. It is laid down by Lord Coke, that if a lessee for years is ousted, and the person in reversion disseised, and the disseisor levies a fine with proclamations, both the lessor and lessee are barred, if they do not make their claim within five years after the fine has been levied; and the lessor will not be allowed a new period of five years, after the expiration of the term, to make his claim; because the lessor might have brought an assise or other real action, immediately after the fine was levied; and being thus comprehended within the first saving, he cannot take advantage of the second saving. This doctrine has, however, been since contradicted, and is not now held to be law. 32. A lessee for 21 years, who was seised in fee of other lands in the same manor, made a lease for life of all his lands, and levied a fine with proclamations of as many messuages and acres of land as comprehended, not only the lands whereof he was seised in fee, but also the lands which he held for years. He afterwards continued in possession, and paid his rent. Upon the expiration of the term, the lessee claimed the inheritance of the land which he had held by lease, and would have barred the lessor, by means of the fine and non-claim. But it was determined by all the Judges, that the lessor should have a new period of five years from the expiration of the term, to make his claim, and avoid the fine. 2 - 334. 33. This determination is said by Lord Coke to have been founded on the circumstances of fraud which appeared in the case; the principal of which was, that the lessee continued in possession after he had levied a fine, and regularly paid his rent, so that the lessor could have no notice that a fine had been levied of his lands. But in other books the judge- 1Vent.241,2. ment is said not to have been founded on the fraud which appeared in the case, but upon the true construction of the statute. And the doctrine that where a lessee for years makes a feoffment, and then levies a fine, the lessor need not make his claim within five years after the fine has been levied, but is allowed another period of five years, from the determination of the term, was finally established in the following case. Taucred, Vent. 219. 2 Lev. 52. 34. A lessee for years made a feoffment, and then Whaley v. levied a fine; five years passed; and the question 1.241. was, whether the lessor was barred by his non-claim T. Raym. during the five years which elapsed immediately after the fine was levied; or should be comprehended 1 Atk. 571. within the second saving of the statute 4 Hen. VII. and be allowed another period of five years, from the expiration of the term, to avoid the fine. The Court resolved that the lessor should have five years from the expiration of the term to avoid the fine; in the same manner as if a lessee for life had levied a fine; the cases being exactly similar. 35. No person who is within the first saving of the statute 4 Hen. VII. can be comprehended within the second saving, unless the second right which accrues to him is different from the first right: for if it is only the same right which accrues a second time, Salvin v. 156. Sawle v. 208. Of the third ante, c. 5. § 21. and ante, c. 9. § 26. the nonclaim, during the five years after the right first accrued, will be a good bar. 36. A tenant in tail made a lease for three lives, which was not warranted by the stat. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 28.; he then levied a fine, and died without issue. Five years passed without any claim by the person in remainder; but on the expiration of the lease he entered. The Court resolved that he was barred by his non-claim during the five years which elapsed immediately after failure of issue of the tenant in tail; and should not have a new period of five years, after the expiration of the lease; because the lease being void as to him, he had no other title after the expiration of the lease than he had before; for his title arose by the death of the tenant in tail without issue, when he might have brought his formedon. 37. There is a third saving in the stat. 4 Hen. VII. in the following words" Saving to every person or persons, not party nor privy to the said fine, their exception to avoid the same fine by that, that those which were parties to the fine nor any of them, nor no person or persons to their use, nor to the use of any of them, had nothing in the lands and tenements comprised in the said fine, at the time of the said fine levied." 38. This clause is merely a confirmation of the old infra, c. 14. law, by which a fine might be avoided by showing that the parties had no estate of freehold in the lands; but it has been already observed, that it is not necessary for a tenant in tail to be in possession of the estate infra, c. 14. tail when he levies a fine; and the issue in tail being here described by the word privy, are not within this saving. Infants, &c. 39. It has been stated that at common law, and Exceptions also by the statute de modo levandi fines, all those in favour of who laboured under certain disabilities at the time when a fine was levied, were not affected by it; but they or their heirs might avoid it at any distance of time. This doctrine was altered by the statute 4 Hen. VII. which excepts married women, unless they are parties to the fine, and all persons then being within the age of 21 years, in prison, or out of the realm, or not of whole mind at the time of the said fine levied, not parties to such fine, out of the body of the act. But at the end of the second saving is the following clause respecting them. 40. "And if the same persons at the time of such action, right, and title accrued, descended, remained, or come unto them, be covert de baron, or within age, in prison, or out of this land, or not of whole mind, then it is ordained, &c. that their action, right, and title be reserved and saved to them and their heirs, until they come and be at their full age of 21 years, out of prison, within this land, uncovert, and of whole mind; so that they or their heirs take their said actions, or their lawful entry, according to their right and title, within five years next after that they come and be at their full age, out of prison, within this land, uncovert, and of whole mind; and the same action pursue, or other lawful entry take, according to law." 41. "And also it is ordained, &c. that all such persons as be covert de baron, not party to the fine, and every person being within the age of 21 years, in prison, or out of this land, or not of whole mind, at the times of the said fines levied and engrossed, and by this said act afore except, having any right or title or cause of action to any of the said lands and other hereditaments, that they or their heirs, inheritable to the same, take their said actions or lawful entry, according to their right and title, within five years next after that they come and be of age of 21 years, out of prison, uncovert, within this land, and of whole mind, and the same actions sue, or their lawful entry take and pursue, according to the law; and if they do not take their actions and entry as is aforesaid, that they and every of them, and their heirs, and the heirs of every of them, be concluded by the said fines for ever, in like form as they be that be parties or privies to the said fines." 42. In consequence of these two clauses, all those who labour under any of the disabilities therein specified, either at the time when a fine is levied, or when a right to lands, whereof a fine has been levied, first accrues to them, are allowed five years from the removal of their disabilities to make their claim. 43. Although the stat. 4 Hen. VII. allows infants 1 Leon. 215. five years after they have attained their full age to Plowd. 366. Plowd. 366. Plowd. 375. 1 Leon. 215. 2 Atk. 614. make their claim; yet an infant may, if he pleases, make his claim before he attains his full age. 44. In the case of Stowell v. Zouch, Brown and Saunders said, that if an infant be in his mother's womb when a fine is levied, such infant will be allowed five years from the time he attains his age of 21 years to make his claim; for though he is not comprehended within the letter of the act, which only mentions infants under the age of 21 years, and therefore does not extend to those who are unborn, yet they are within the intention of the act, and will be aided by the exception. 45. It was agreed by the counsel in the same case, that if a person labours under several disabilities at the same time, as if a woman is covert, under age, of |