162

121

(1/11) Statute Elegit. 13 Ed I. We have estates by Eligit as in Eng.
(uses for mortgages) Though by recent statute it has been altered See: D. C. 762 § 7 to 10.
(2 Gratt [298]) The differences between Elegit in Engl. & Va are as follows.
1st. Ours does not embrace goods & chattels: the English does.
(5 Do 352) 2nd. Ours takes all the real estate. The English takes only half.
Ours seem to include estates for years from the
(Woodson W5.) use of the term "possessed".
3rd. Ours takes real estate only the English personal also.
162 Blackstone gives Cokes reason why an Elegit is
(Perkins 6 Munf 556.) not a freehold. The reason which the author, himself,
gives is not the true reason vis that this estate being
merely a Security for money or a debt due the
(3 Leigh) deceased, it goes to the Executor & not to the heirs
(Boswell vs. Buchanan) because they are liable for the debts due by the
decedant. The true reason is because the utmost
period of its duration is limited by the Valuation
of the rent awarded by the jury & is an Est. for years. This valuation
is technically called an "extent." If the estate be
not certain at first, it is certainly made so by the
calculation of the time required to pay the rent
after its valuation is fixed. The only thing which
makes the estate uncertain is that the defendant
may come and make a tender of the money or
the debt may be satisfied by some casualty as the
finding of a mine &c. Bac. abr. Executor. B. 7.
115 Estates in possion & in Futuro
(Lecture Dec 30th) The latter ar of three
kinds — vis Estates in Remainder. Reversion and
Executory limitations.
Remainders. The author says that no estate of freehold
can be created, to commence in futuro, because
at Com. law. livery of Seisen was necessary. But
this rule does not hold in Va. as freehold may
be made to commence in futuro & as well
by deed as by Will V. C. 500. § 4 & 5. It has been
supposed that the Va. Statute meant the estate
should be created by feoffment, and that livery
of seisen was dispensed with. The Com. law
reason of this rule was —