teſy: becauſe, at the inſtant of the mother's death, he was clearly not entitled, as having had no iſſue born, but the land deſcended to the child, while he was yet in his mother's womb; and the eſtate, being once ſo veſted, ſhall not afterwards be taken from him[1]. In gavelkind lands, a huſband may be tenant by the curteſy without having any iſſue[2]. But in general there muſt be iſſue born; and ſuch iſſue muſt alſo be capable of inheriting the mother's eſtate[3]. Therefore if a woman be tenant in tail male and hath only a daughter born, the huſband is not thereby entitled to be tenant by the curteſy; becauſe ſuch iſſue female can never inherit the eſtate in tail male[4]. And this ſeems to be the true reaſon, why the huſband cannot be tenant by the curteſy of any lands of which the wife was not actually ſeiſed: becauſe, in order to intitle himſelf to ſuch eſtate, he muſt have begotten iſſue that may be heir to the wife; but no one, by the ſtanding rule of law, can be heir to the anceſtor of any land, whereof the anceſtor was not actually ſeiſed; and therefore, as the huſband hath never begotten any iſſue that can be heir to thoſe lands, he ſhall not be tenant of them by the curteſy[5]. And hence we may obſerve, with how much nicety and conſideration the old rules of law were framed; and how cloſely they are connected and interwoven together, ſupporting, illuſtrating, and demonſtrating one another. The time when the iſſue was born is immaterial, provided it were during the coverture: for, whether it were born before or after the wife's ſeiſin of the lands, whether it be living or dead at the time of the ſeiſin, or at the time of the wife's deceaſe, the huſband ſhall be tenant by the curteſy[6]. The huſband by the birth of the child becomes (as was before obſerved) tenant by the curteſy initiate[7], and may do many acts to charge the lands; but his eſtate is not conſummate till the death of the wife; which is the fourth and laſt requiſite to make a complete tenant by the curteſy[8].
