ded for, and the reſt of the inheritance was divided among her other ſiſters. The law of hotchpot took place then only, when the other lands deſcending from the anceſtor were fee-ſimple; for, if they deſcended in tail, the donee in frankmarriage was entitled to her ſhare, without bringing her lands ſo given into hotchpot[1]. And the reaſon is, becauſe lands deſcending in fee-ſimple are diſtributed by the policy of law, for the maintenance of all the daughters; and, if one has a ſufficient proviſion out of the ſame inheritance, equal to the reſt, it is not reaſonable that ſhe ſhould have more: but lands, deſcending in tail, are not diſtributed by the operation of law, ſo properly as per formam doni; it matters not therefore how unequal this diſtribution may be. Alſo no lands, but ſuch as are given in frankmarriage, ſhall be brought into hotchpot; for no others are looked upon in law as given for the advancement of the woman, or by way of marriage-portion[2]. And therefore, as gifts in frankmarriage are fallen into diſuſe, I ſhould hardly have mentioned the law of hotchpot, had not this method of diviſion been revived and copied by the ſtatute for diſtribution of perſonal eſtates, which we ſhall hereafter conſider at large.
The eſtate in coparcenary may be diſſolved, either by partition, which diſunites the poſſeſſion; by alienation of one parcener, which diſunites the title, and may diſunite the intereſt; or by the whole at laſt deſcending to and veſting in one ſingle perſon, which brings it to an eſtate in ſeveralty.
IV. Tenants in common are ſuch as hold by ſeveral and diſtinct titles, but by unity of poſſeſſion; becauſe none knoweth his own ſeveralty, and therefore they all occupy promiſcuouſly[3]. This tenancy therefore happens, where there is an unity of poſſeſſion merely, but perhaps an entire diſunion of intereſt, of title, and of time. For, if there be two tenants in common of lands, one may hold his part in fee-ſimple, the other in tail, or for life;
