assignment? Are the dowers ad ostium ecclesiæ and ex assensu patris

in use now?

SEC. XLIV. [p. 15]-Is dower usually assigned by metes and bounds? Is the widow of a tenant in common entitled to dower? How is her dower to be assigned to her in such case? There are two joint-tenants; one aliens his share: is it any longer a jointtenancy, or what is it?

SEC. XLV. [p. 15]-If the husband died a joint-tenant, is his widow entitled to dower?

SEC. LII. [p. 15].-Of what estate is there curtesy ? Must the issue be capable of inheriting the estate as heir to the wife? What do you understand by this? Suppose the wife inherited the estate, would her husband be entitled to curtesy? From whom are descents now to be traced? If the wife were tenant in tail, is the husband entitled to curtesy?

SEC. LIII. [p. 16] Of what estate is there dower? Must there be a possibility that any issue should be able to inherit as heir to the husband? (Need there be any issue born, p. 13, Note.) What do you understand by this? Suppose the husband inherited the estate, would the wife be dowable, bearing in mind the new Inheritance Act? Gift to A and the heirs which he shall beget of the body of his [then] wife, what estates do A and his wife respectively take? Will the wife be entitled to dower? On such a gift the wife dies without issue, and the husband marries again will the second wife be entitled to dower? On a devise to a woman and her heirs, but if she die leaving issue, then to her children and their heirs, do the children take by purchase, and is the husband entitled to curtesy ? (To be continued.)

MOOT POINT.

No. 29.-Tenant by the Courtesy-Insolvency.-A. is entitled under the will of her father, to lands in fee simple in remainder on the death of B, the tenant for life. B. is still living. A. married C. some years ago, and children of the marriage have been born. C. has become insolvent, and his petition has been filed under the Protection Act. C.'s interest is not yet a tenancy by the courtesy. Supposing A. dies before B., the children of the marriage then take A.'s interest. Under these circumstances, what is the precise legal interest that passes to the assignee under the insolvency, and, suppose C. had not been insolvent, and had proposed to sell his interest, could he have done so ?-A. G. DITTON (Kate's-Hill, Dudley).

ANSWERS TO EXAMINATION QUESTIONS.

We have often desired to place before our readers copies of actual answers at the examinations.

We have asked several who have passed to favour us from their drafts or from recollection, with some idea of the answers which carried them safely through the ordeal. Almost a promise has been obtained from others about to pass, and who did so, that they would give some enlightenment as to the means by which they obtained a happy deliverance. The result of our application was the same in each class of cases. No answers could we get. There is evidently great sensitiveness about disclosing these answers, and, perhaps, there is something not unnatural in the feeling. We will not stay to analyse it, but simply indicate its existence as a reason, good as regards ourselves, why we have failed in procuring these desiderated answers. One thing is certain, that the desire on the part of ourselves and our readers, to have these answers, is met by a stronger desire on the "other side" to withhold them.

In despair we seized upon a "prize man," from the other branch of the profession, and stated our difficulty. He at once offered us (if he could find them) the drafts of such of his answers as he had time to make. By good fortune these drafts turned up, somewhat dusty and discoloured from age (for he is now getting into his "teens" at the bar), and by still further luck his original copy of the "questions" themselves has been discovered. This examination, now upwards of twelve years ago, was, as our readers may be aware, a voluntary examination for honours by men about to be called to the bar. It was then confined to real property law, was oral as well as written, and was comprised in one single day, a bad arrangement, which, like the Attorney's Examination, has been since remedied. Of the oral examination we can furnish no information beyond this, that our friend says it was very trying to the brain and nervous system generally. The question was either first thrown up, and the student, who was expected to catch it, afterwards indicated by the examiner, or the student thus favoured was put on the qui vive, and the question aimed at him.

The severity of the two processes of examination may be imagined by their lasting from 10 till 6 continuously, and then closing, the only vacuum being "sherry and sandwich" at 1 o'clock, and a turn out of the hall at 4 o'clock, to make way for the more important "dinner," which the examinants were never to touch. The adjournment was to the library, a further source of tantalisation, as nothing there was to be touched.

These matters are mentioned by our friend to account for the absence of many of the answers. He began to make them in draft,

and fair-copied them for the examiners, but time pressed, and after copying two dozen answers, he was obliged to send up the remaining dozen (there were 36) in the rough draft.

Our readers have now the questions and answers just as they were delivered, and without any emendation. Given, as they of course were, without reference to books they differ from the answers given by ourselves and others to the ordinary examination questions, by the absence of cited authorities.

The questions themselves are, also, of a higher class than those put to intending attorneys.

We think that these answers may be useful as furnishing hints how questions have been answered, not only for merely passing, but whereby honours were obtained.

QUESTIONS ANSWERED ON AN EXAMINATION IN THE HALL OF GRAY'S-INN.

QUEST. What is seisin of what subject may it be had? and into what estates may it be divided?

ANS. By seisin I understand the corporeal investiture of one party by another of a real hereditament, so as to constitute him in fact, or in law, the owner thereof. It may be had of all such hereditaments as are of the realty, and may be divided into such estates as are for the life of the party or of another, in fee tail or fee simple, excluding, therefore, estates of which parties are only possessed as leases for years and semble, tenants by elegit, statute merchant or of the staple, and also hereditaments, which are not tenements, such as annuities, &c., as distinguished from rents, &c.

QUEST.-What were the qualities which distinguished uses from

other interests in land, prior to the 27th Henry VIII., c. 10? ANS.-The distinguishing features in a use, prior to the statute against them were, that they eluded the strict rules of the feudal common law, applicable to the transfer and acquisition of estates, substituting for the simple and notorious conveyances of that system the secret, and, to the common law shadowy, insubstantial and untangible use transferable by almost any means, arising, shifting, changing anyhow, in futuro, defeating a fee even without condition, devisable, not subject to forfeiture or escheat, nor to the cestui que use's debts.

QUEST.-Upon what principle, when, and how do uses result upon a fine or common recovery ?

ANS.-Uses resulted upon a fine, and common recovery by reason that they were regarded as common assurances, and, therefore, not differing from a simple feoffment to the conusee or recoveror,

which if, without consideration, expressed or implied (as must always have been the case upon a fine or common recovery), gave back a statute-use to the feoffor.

QUEST.-Detail the distinction in nature and effect, between a bargain and sale, and a feoffment, grant, or release ?

ANS.-Bargain and sale, and covenant to stand seised, whether for money, marriage, or relationship, are contracts raising uses executed by the statute on the seisin of the bargainer or covenanter, and, therefore, not transmuting the possession, whilst the assurances by feoffment, grant, or release, operate by transmutation of possession, and act upon the seisin in the feoffee, grantee, or releasee. In a bargain and sale there is no reasonable objection to the uses extending beyond the party paying the consideration, but in a covenant to stand seised no ulterior uses will be good or executed, but such as bring themselves within the consideration which would have served to make them originally good.

QUEST.-Detail the rules which determine the time when a remainder must take effect, and who may participate under a remainder to a class.

ANS.-The general rules applicable to all remainders is that they must be limited to a party who is capable of taking a new estate in the subject matter, and not be limited of his old estate. That it be created at the same time with the particular estate and in the same subject matter. It must not be limited so as to defeat the particular estate, but must arise on its natural determination, and it must vest during the continuance of the particular estate or at the very instant of its natural determination. If the remainder may not be ready to take effect if the particular estate were immediately to determine (which constitutes it a contingent remainder), it must be preceded by a freehold estate, so that the seisin may be full. The parties who may participate in a remainder to a class are such as come into existence during the continuance of the particular estate, and though those who precede others acquire, on their coming into existence or attaining the qualification attached to the gift, a vested interest in the entire estate, yet it is subject to open and let in others of the class who may be ready to take while the particular estate continues. But when once the remainder has vested in possession there is no instance of such possession being disturbed, except, perhaps, for a posthumous child under the statute of William III.

QUEST.-What is the doctrine of "remitter," and when does it not apply?

ANS." Remitter" is a consequence produced by law on a party coming to the possession of an estate by a double title when he is

remitted to his elder and better title, the reason being that, as the only party against whom he could proceed to enforce his elder title is himself, the law to prevent the impossibility of a man suing himself gives him the same benefit as if he did, by declaring him in of his old estate, and this not only for his own benefit (which he may lose), but for the advantage of those in remainder, it being the rule that a man shall not prevent the operation of the doctrine of remitter when his so doing would prejudice others, but he is remitted nolens volens. The doctrine does not apply where, by his own fault, he has estopped himself from claiming his elder estate, as by acceptance of a new estate by an original conveyance to himself, as distinguished from a derivative one. The issue of a tenant in tail, who took a new estate under an original or derivative conveyance to uses, are not estopped, though their ancestors be.

QUEST.-When are the words "issue," "children," and " heirs of the body," respectively words of purchase, and when words of limitation, and what is their effect, in the one case, and in the other?

ANS.-The words "issue" and "children" in a deed are always words of purchase, and "heirs of the body," as being the proper technical verbiage for creating an estate tail, are always words of limitation. In a will the above words mean just what will best effectuate the intention. Thus, the word "issue," which, unrestrained, means and includes all the descendants of a person, may, by a gift over in default of issue, be restrained to mean heirs of the body, in order to give effect to the remainder, which would be defeated if it were expectant on an indefinite failure of issue. The word "children" also yields to the context even more readily than "issue." The term "heirs of the body" seems so completely to describe an estate tail that it would require some extraordinary context to bend it to any other purpose, though, if strong words of division were attached to it, showing an intention, that they should take as a class with a life estate to the ancestors and superadded limitation to their heirs, would give them the fee by purchase, as tenants in common. The effect of the words being words of purchase is to give to "issue," "children," or "heirs of the body," an estate indefeasible by the ancestor; whilst, if it were a word of limitation, it would unite itself with the estate of the ancestor, and, according to the necessities of the remainder, give a fee simple or fee tail.

QUEST.-Explain the doctrine of " perpetuities," and give different instances in which it applies, or does not apply?

ANS. The doctrine of perpetuity is that which prevents an estate being rendered inalienable beyond the existence of a life, or con