Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/204

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
192
The Rights
Book II.

ſo that there is no neceſſary unity of intereſt: one may hold by deſcent, the other by purchaſe; or the one by purchaſe from A, the other by purchaſe from B; ſo that there is no unity of title: one's eſtate may have been veſted fifty years, the other's but yeſterday; ſo there is no unity of time. The only unity there is, is that of poſſeſſion; and for this Littleton gives the true reaſon, becauſe no man can certainly tell which part is his own: otherwiſe even this would ſoon be deſtroyed.

Tenancy in common may be created, either by the deſtruction of the two other eſtates, in joint-tenancy and coparcenary, or by ſpecial limitation in a deed. By the deſtruction of the two other eſtates, I mean ſuch deſtruction as does not fever the unity of poſſeſſion, but only the unity of title or intereſt. As, if one of two joint-tenants in fee alienes his eſtate for the life of the alienee, the alienee and the other joint-tenant are tenants in common: for they now have ſeveral titles, the other joint-tenant by the original grant, the alienee by the new alienation[1]; and they alſo have ſeveral intereſts, the former joint-tenant in fee-ſimple, the alienee for his own life only. So, if one joint-tenant give his part to A in tail, and the other gives his to B in tail, the donees are tenants in common, as holding by different titles and conveyances[2]. If one of two parceners alienes, the alienee and the remaining parcener are tenants in common[3]; becauſe they hold by different titles, the parcener by deſcent, the alienee by purchaſe. So likewiſe, if there be a grant to two men, or two women, and the heirs of their bodies, here the grantees ſhall be joint-tenants of the life-eſtate, but they ſhall have ſeveral inheritances; becauſe they cannot poſſibly have one heir of their two bodies, as might have been the caſe had the limitation been to a man and woman, and the heirs of their bodies begotten[4]: and in this, and the like caſes, their iſſues ſhall be tenants in common; becauſe they muſt claim by different titles, one as heir of A, and the other as heir of B; and thoſe too not titles by

  1. Litt. §. 293.
  2. Ibid. 295.
  3. Ibid. 309.
  4. Ibid. 283.
purchaſe,