inſtrument declaring that intention was allowed to be binding in equity. But ceſtuy que uſe could not at common law aliene the legal intereſt of the lands, without the concurrence of his feoffee[1]; to whom he was accounted by law to be only tenant at ſufferance[2]. Uſes were not liable to any of the feodal burthens; and particularly did not eſcheat for felony or other defect of blood; for eſcheats, &c, are the conſequence of tenure, and uſes are held of nobody: but the land itſelf was liable to eſcheat, whenever the blood of the feoffee to uſes was extinguiſhed by crime or by defect; and the lord (as was before obſerved) might hold it diſcharged of the uſe[3]. 6. No wife could be endowed, or huſband have his curteſy, of a uſe[4]: for no truſt was declared for their benefit, at the original grant of the eſtate. And therefore it became cuſtomary, when moſt eſtates were put in uſe, to ſettle before marriage ſome joint eſtate to the uſe of the huſband and wife for their lives; which was the original of modern jointures[5]. 7. A uſe could not be extended by writ of elegit, or other legal proceſs, for the debts of ceſtuy que uſe[6]. For, being merely a creature of equity, the common law, which looked no farther than to the perſon actually ſeiſed of the land, could award no proceſs againſt it.
It is impracticable, upon our preſent plan, to purſue the doctrine of uſes through all the refinements and niceties, which the ingenuity of the times (abounding in ſubtile diſquiſitions) deduced from this child of the imagination; when once a departure was permitted from the plain ſimple rules of property eſtabliſhed by the antient law. Theſe principal outlines will be fully ſufficient to ſhew the ground of lord Bacon's complaint[7], that this courſe of proceeding "was turned to deceive many of their juſt and reaſonable rights. A man, that had cauſe to ſue for land, knew not againſt whom to bring his action, or who was the owner
