the manner of raising a use in such a case was, to covenant to stand seised to such a use; or that the land should be to such a use, or that such a one should be seised to the use: here the words were words of covenant. 8. A person covenanted, in consideration of natural Englefield's Case, affection, to stand seised to the use of himself for Jenk. 267. life, and after his death that the said lands should Dyer, 55 a. descend or remain to his cousin B. in fee. Resolved Jones, by all the Judges, that no use was raised, by reason of Samon v. the said disjunctive, remain or descend; and that it 2 Vent. 318. was only a covenant. Who may 9. This conveyance being similar in many respects covenant to to a bargain and sale, no person can transfer lands by stand seised. it, who is not capable of being seised to a use. ante, c. 9. $12. 10. It follows from the same principle that no What may be species of property can be transferred by covenant to conveyed by. stand seised, which cannot be conveyed to a use: the covenantor must be seised in possession, or entitled in remainder or reversion, at the time of the execution of the deed; because the use must arise out of Tit. 11. c. 3. the seisin, or right, which the covenantor has at the time. Cro. Eliz. 11. A father covenanted, in consideration of na- Yelverton v. Yelverton, tural affection, to stand seised of all the lands which he had, or should afterwards purchase, to the use of 401. himself for life, remainder to his youngest son and his heirs. It was determined, that the after purchased lands did not vest in the youngest son by this deed; because a man cannot, by a covenant, raise a use out of land which he has not. 2 Roll. Ab. 12. If two persons are joint tenants in fee, and one Barton's of them covenants that, after the death of his com- Case, panion, he will stand seised of all the moiety of his 790. companion to certain uses: though the covenantor What Consideration necessary. Sharington v. Bould v. 2 Roll. Ab. Bedell's 7 Rep. 40. survives, yet no use will arise, because at the time of the covenant he could not grant or charge that moiety. 13. A covenant to stand seised being a conveyance of a private nature, and valid without enrolment, it is absolutely necessary that the consideration be natural love and affection to a child, or near relation, or marriage. 14. By indenture between A. Bainton and Edward his brother, the said A. Baynton, to the intent that the manors therein comprised might descend and remain to the heirs male of his body, and that the same might continue to such of the blood and name of Bainton as in the same indenture should be named, covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life, remainder to the use of his brother Edward and his wife for their lives, remainder to his other brothers. It was held that the consideration was sufficient to support the deed, as a covenant to stand seised. 15. A man covenanted, in consideration of natural 'love and affection to his son, to stand seised to the use of his son for life, remainder to the use of such wife as the son should marry, for her life, &c. It was held that a use arose to the wife, she being within the consideration; for it was for the advancement of his posterity; and without a wife the son could not have any. 16. A use will arise to a wife, without any consideration expressed, upon a covenant to stand, seised. 17. R. Bedell, by indenture between him and his wife of the first part, I. his second son of the second part, and M. his third son of the third part; in consideration of natural love and affection to his sons, covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for life, remainder to his wife for life, remainder to his sons in moieties. It was objected that the wife was not within the consideration expressed in the indenture, and no other consideration could be averred than was contained in the deed: but it was answered and resolved, that a consideration which stood with the deed, and was not repugnant to it, might well be averred that when he limited the lands to the use of his wife for life, that imported a sufficient consideration in itself; and there needed no averment. 18. A. Burt, in consideration of the love and Goodtitle affection he bore to Ann his wife, and for some 2 Stra. 934. v. Petto, provision, in case she survived him, covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his wife for their lives, and the life of the survivor, remainder to the issue of their two bodies, remainder to the use of such person or persons as his wife should think fit to dispose to; for want of such disposition, to the use of the lessor of the plaintiff, who was nephew to the covenantor. The Court was of opinion that the lessor of the plaintiff had a title. 1. Because he was named in the deed. 2. Because it was stated that he was nephew to the covenantor; and though the deed did not mention him as such, yet being expressly named, he might aver himself within the consideration. 19. Love and affection to an illegitimate child is not a sufficient consideration to raise a use, in a covenant to stand seised. 20. A person covenanted, in consideration of Perrot's natural love and affection, to stand seised to the use 374. 2 Roll. Case, Dyer, of himself for life, remainder to A. his reputed son Ab. 785. (who was his bastard) for life, &c. He also covenanted to levy a fine, or make a feoffment, for farther assurance. Afterwards he made a feoffment in fee to the covenantees, in performance of his covenant to the same uses. It was resolved, that Gerard, Frampton v. no use arose to A. the bastard, by the covenant, for want of a consideration; nor could he take any thing by the feoffment, it being only made for further 2 Roll. Ab. 785. Plowd. 303. assurance. 21. The adopting a sirname is not a sufficient consideration to raise a use in a covenant to stand seised, as was resolved in Sir Christopher Hatton's case; who having a sister's son named Newport, covenanted, in consideration of his taking the name of Hatton, that he would stand seised to his use; held that no use arose, for want of a sufficient consideration. 22. The consideration of ancient acquaintance, or 2 Roll. Ab. being chamber-fellows, or entire friends, will not be 783. Hore v. Dix, Sid. 25. sufficient to raise a use. 23. A covenant with a stranger, that he shall enjoy the land, to the use of the covenantee's son, will not be good. 24. A., by indenture between him and B. his son 2 Vent. 319. of the one part, and two strangers of the other part, in consideration of natural love to his son, gave, granted, and enfeoffed the two strangers, to the use of himself for life, remainder to B. in tail, remainder over; and covenanted with the two strangers, that they should enjoy the said land, to the uses aforesaid. The deed was sealed and delivered, but no livery of seisin was given; nor was there any attornment. Resolved, that no use was raised by this deed; for a covenant with strangers could not raise a use. 11 Rep. 24 b. 7- 39 b. 25. Where a deed is made in consideration of a sum of money, it will not operate as a covenant to stand seised. 26. A person covenanted by indenture, that in consideration of 201. paid him by his son, he would stand seised to the use of him and his heirs. Held, that the indenture must be enrolled, otherwise nothing Vin. Ab. 196. would pass for the express valuable consideration Contra, 22. tolled the tacit implied consideration of blood: and no other consideration could be averred, than was contained in the deed. 27. In the case of a covenant to stand seised, a use will arise to the persons who are within the consideration; though no use will arise to those who are strangers to it. 28. Tenant in tail, remainder in fee. The person in remainder, to the intent that his lands should continue and remain in his family name and blood, covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and the heirs male of his body, remainder to the use of his brother in tail, remainder to the use of the Queen, her heirs and successors. Resolved, that a use arose to the covenantor in tail, and to his brother; but that no use arose to the Queen, for want of a consideration. A Use only arises to the Persons within the Consideration. Wiseman's Case, 2 Rep. 15 a. 29. P. Risley, by indenture between him and Sir Smith v. T. D., Sir A. D. T. Risley his brother, and W. W., Cro. Car. Risley, covenanted and agreed with them, to stand seised of 529. certain lands, to the use of himself for life, remainder to the use of his wife for life, remainder to the use of the covenantees and their heirs, upon several trusts, for his children. Resolved, that the uses were well raised and vested in T. Risley his brother, he being of the blood of the covenantor; but that no use arose to the other covenantees, they being strangers. . 30. A. covenanted to stand seised to several uses, Whaley v. afterwards to C. for 99 years, if he should so long 2 Lev. 52. Tancred, live, remainder to a stranger for the life of C. to 54. preserve contingent remainders, remainder over. Agreed by all, that the remainder to the stranger was void. |