present, but totally dammed up and rendered impervious for the future. This is a refinement upon the ancient law of feuds, which allowed that the grandson might be heir to his grandfather, though the son in the intermediate generation was guilty of felony. But, by the law of England, a man's blood is so universally corrupted by attainder, that his sons can neither inherit to him nor to any other ancestor," at least on the part of their attainted father.

This corruption of blood cannot be absolutely removed but by authority of parliament. The king may excuse the public punishment of an offender; but cannot abolish the private right, which has accrued or may accrue to individuals as a consequence of the criminal's attainder. He may remit a forfeiture, in which the interest of the crown is alone concerned: but he cannot wipe away the corruption of blood; for therein a third person hath an interest, the lord who claims by escheat. If, therefore, a man hath a son, and is attainted, and afterwards pardoned by the king; this son can never inherit to his father, or father's ancestors; because his paternal blood being once thoroughly corrupted by his father's attainder, must continue so: but if the son had been born after the pardon, he might inherit; because by the pardon the father is made a new man, and may convey new inheritable blood to his after-born children."

Herein there is, however, a difference between aliens and persons attainted. Of aliens, who could never by any possibility be heirs, the law takes no notice: and therefore we have [255] seen that an alien elder brother shall not impede the descent to a natural-born younger brother. But in attainders it is otherwise: for if a man hath issue a son, and is attainted, and afterwards pardoned, and then hath issue a second son, and dies; here the corruption of blood is not removed from the eldest, and therefore he cannot be heir: neither can the youngest be heir, for he hath an elder brother living, of whom the law takes notice, as he once had a possibility of being heir; and therefore the younger brother shall not inherit, but the land shall escheat to the lord: though had the elder died without issue in the life of the father, the younger son born after the pardon might well have inherited, for he hath no

m Van Leeuwen in 2 Feud. 31. n Co. Litt. 351.

。 Ibid. 392.

corruption of blood. So if a man hath issue two sons, and the elder in the lifetime of the father hath issue, and then is attainted and executed, and afterwards the father dies, the lands of the father shall not descend to the younger son: for the issue of the elder, which had once a possibility to inherit, shall impede the descent to the younger, and the land shall eseheat to the lord. Sir Edward Coke in this case allows,' that if the ancestor be attainted, his sons born before the attainder may 'be heirs to each other, and distinguishes it from the case of the sons of an alien, because in this case the blood was inheritable when imparted to them from the father: but he makes a doubt (upon the same principles, which are now overruled ") whether sons, born after the attainder, can inherit to each other, for they never had any inheritable blood in them.

Upon the whole it appears that a person attainted is neither allowed to retain his former estate, nor to inherit any future one, nor to transmit any inheritance to his issue, either immediately from himself, or mediately through himself from any remoter ancestor; for his inheritable blood, which is necessary either to hold. to take, or to transmit any feudal property, is blotted out, corrupted, and extinguished forever: the consequence of which is, that estates, thus impeded in their descent, result back and escheat to the lord.

[256] This corruption of blood, thus arising from feudal principles, but perhaps extended further than even those principles will warrant, has been long looked upon as a peculiar hardship: because the oppressive parts of the feudal tenures being now in general abolished, it seems unreasonable to reserve one of their most inequitable consequences; namely, that the children should not only be reduced to present poverty (which, however severe, is sufficiently justified upon reasons of public policy), but also be laid under future difficulties of inheritance, on account of the guilt of their ancestors. And therefore in most (if not all) of the new felonies created by parliament since the reign of Henry the Eighth, it is declared that they shall not extend to any corruption of blood: and by the statute 7 Ann., c. 21 (Treason, 1708), (the operation

P Co. Litt. 8.

• Dyer. 48.

r Co. Litt. 8.

1 Hal. P. C. 357.

of which is postponed by the statute 17 Geo. II, c. 39, 1743), it is enacted, that, after the death of the late pretender, and his sons, no attainder for treason shall extend to the disinheriting any heir, nor the prejudice of any person, other than the offender himself: which provisions have indeed carried the remedy farther than was required by the hardship above complained of; which is only the future obstruction of descents, where the pedigree happens to be deduced through the blood of an attainted ancestor.11

§ 345. 4. Exception to rule of escheat: corporations.-Before I conclude this head of escheat, I must mention one singular instance in which lands held in fee simple are not liable to escheat to the lord, even when their owner is no more, and hath left no heirs to inherit them. And this is the case of a corporation; for if that comes by any accident to be dissolved, the donor or his heirs shall have the land again in reversion, and not the lord by escheat; which is perhaps the only instance where a reversion can be expectant on a grant in fee-simple absolute. But the law, we are told, doth tacitly annex a condition to every such gift or grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, the donor or grantor shall re-enter; for the cause of the gift or grant [257] faileth.12

t Co. Litt. 13.

This

11 Corruption of blood abolished. These, however, were all practically superseded by the Forfeiture Act, 1870, which provides that no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction, or judgment for any treason or felony or felo de se, after the 4th day of July, 1870, is to cause any attainder or corruption of blood, or any forfeiture or escheat. (The act preserves untouched the law of forfeiture consequent on outlawry; but inasmuch as outlawry in all civil proceedings has been abolished by the Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act, 1879, the exception of outlawry can now only refer to criminal proceedings.) The act provides that the property of a convict shall vest in an administrator to be appointed by the crown. But in the case of a trustee or mortgagee becoming a convict within the meaning of the act, it has now been provided by the Trustee Act, 1893, following older legislation, that the legal estate shall remain in such convict, or survive to his cotrustee or cotrustees, or descend to his representative, as if he had not become a convict.-STEPHEN, 1 Comm. (16th ed.), 334.

On outlawry, see article in 18 Law Quart. Rev. 297, "Is Outlawry Obsolete?" 12 Estate of a corporation.—The long discussions whether this is a reversion or a possibility of reverter-or even an escheat, as was said by Vavisour, J.,

:

is indeed founded upon the self-same principle as the law of escheat the heirs of the donor being only substituted instead of the chief lord of the fee: which was formerly very frequently the case in subinfeudations, or alienations of lands by a vassal to be holden as of himself; till that practice was restrained by the statute of quia emptores, 18 Edw. I, st. 1 (1290), to which this very singular instance still in some degree remains an exception.

§ 346. 5. Question of nonjuring papists.-There is one more incapacity of taking by descent, which, not being productive of any and Danby, J., in Y. B. Trin. 5 Hen. VII, fol. 37-might have been ended if recent writers had noticed Blackstone's remark, that "this very singular instance remains an exception to the statute of quia emptores" by which statute the distinction between escheat and reversion first became important. The donor's title depends on the fact that the estate granted by him has expired: and as neither donor nor donee now holds of the chief lord any more than one holds of the other, the question is meaningless. (See Viner, Escheat A. 2, 3, 4; vol. 10, p. 139; Co. Litt. 13 b, and Hargrave's note 2; 2 Dr. & Stud., c. 35; Challis, 31, 174.)

The practical importance of the question is in its bearing on Blackstone's and Coke's doctrine of a reversion to the donor: when that life is determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grantor takes it back by reversion, as in the case of every grant for life. (1 Comm. 484.)

Chitty confirms this by 9 Mod. 326, and says "the lands will revert to the donor and not escheat," making the modern distinction between the two. So they would have done, as a life estate, after the statute of quia emptores. But as a freehold or fee they would not have returned to the donor if granted over to another: for which he cites cases in Bacon's Abr., Corporations, J., and 1 Roll. 816, 1, 10, 20. And if the corporation takes a fee (and it may cer tainly convey one to another) there seems no reason in the present law why the land should revert to the donor, since it is no longer held of him.

Upon the view taken by Blackstone it would be a more important question, practically, whether a corporation, the existence of which is limited to twenty, fifty, or any determinate number of years (as in the case of most American corporations under the general incorporation acts) can take a fee simple, or freehold estate of any kind. That it can sell again and give to an individual grantee such a fee simple, may be taken for granted, provided it has a freehold of any kind. This is "having a fee simple for the purpose of alienation, but only a determinable fee for the purpose of enjoyment," as Mr. Preston said long ago. (1 Abstracts of Title, 272.) But can its estate be even a determinable fee, when the life of the owner is limited to a term? Could the fact that the corporation may be renewed for any number of such terms, one after another, make it a fee, any more than the right of indefinite renewal in a lease?-HAMMOND.

escheat, is not properly reducible to this head, and yet must not be passed over in silence. It is enacted by the statute 11 & 12 Will. III, c. 4 (1700), that every papist who shall not abjure the errors of his religion by taking the oaths to the government, and making the declaration against transubstantiation, within six months after he has attained the age of eighteen years, shall be incapable of inheriting, or taking, by descent as well as purchase, any real estates whatsoever; and his next of kin being a Protestant, shall hold them to his own use till such time as he complies with the terms imposed by the act. This incapacity is merely personal; it affects himself only, and does not destroy the inheritable quality of his blood, so as to impede the descent to others of his kindred. In like manner as, even in the times of popery, one who entered into religion and became a monk professed was incapable of inheriting lands, both in our own" and the feudal law; eo quod desiit esse miles seculi qui factus est miles Christi; nec beneficium pertinet ad eum qui non debet gerere officium (he who becomes a soldier of Christ hath ceased to be a soldier of the world, nor is he entitled to any reward who acknowledges no duty)." But yet he was accounted only civiliter mortuus (dead in law); he did not impede the descent to others, but the next heir was entitled to his or his ancestor's estate.13

These are the several deficiencies of hereditary blood, recognized by the law of England; which, so often as they happen, occasion lands to escheat to the original proprietary or lord.

u Co. Litt. 132.

w 2 Feud. 21.

13 Abolition of laws against Roman Catholics and Jews.-In 1832 Roman Catholics were placed on a level with Protestant dissenters in respect of their schools, churches and charitable institutions, and also in respect of the property held in trust for such purposes. In 1846 the same legal status was accorded to Jewish endowments; and partly in that year, partly in 1844, a clean sweep was made of all the remaining acts directed against Roman Catholics, which the Relief Act of 1829 had left in existence, perhaps from inadvertence, owing to their being practically obsolete.-SIR R. KNYVET WILSON, Hist. of Mod. Eng. Law, 259.

1049