The purchase, or determination of an intermediate estate, may be the cause of merger, as between two estates, kept distinct by means of the intermediate estate.

As soon as the intermediate estates determine by effluxion of time, or by merger, or surrender, &c. then the estates between which they were interposed will unite. The determination of the mesne estate removes the impediment, and gives scope to the doctrine of merger, so that the purchase or accession of an intermediate estate, may afford scope for the application of this doctrine, as between other estates divided by this mesne estate. Each estate may merge in the estate next in order of time, and by progression, all the estates may ultimately be absorbed in the more remote estate, as often as this more remote estate is as large as, or larger than, any of the preceding estates, and there is such a gradation between the several estates, so that the several estates may successively merge in each other, either in progressive or some other order. To illustrate these observations by an example,—when A. is tenant for years, or for life, remainder to B. for years, or for life, remainder or reversion to A. in tail or in fee, and B. conveys his estate to A.-in each of these instances.

all the other estates will concede to the fee, and form one single intire and consolidated interest. In a case so circumstanced, the operation of this doctrine is gradual. At first it applies to the estate of B. and merges that estate in the fee. By this operation the several estates of A. become immediate to each other, and then the subsequent estate acquires such a quality, that the more immediate estate may merge in this estate, as an estate immediately expectant thereupon.

The case of Holt and Sambach(a) involved these considerations. In that case Sir William Catesby was tenant for life of the manor of Lopworth, remainder to Robert his son and heir apparent, and to the heirs male of his body, remainder to Sir W. Catesby and to the heirs male of his body, remainder to the heirs of the body of the said Robert, remainder to the right heirs of the said Sir W. Catesby; Sir W. Catesby and Robert, being within age, joined in a deed whereby the said Sir W. Catesby granted, and the said Robert confirmed to the avowant and his heirs an annual rent of ten pounds by the year, payable out of the said manor of Lopworth, to the said defendant and his heirs, at two feasts, viz. at the Annunciation

(a) Cro. Car. 103. Hetley, 74. Hutt. 96.

and St. Michael, with clause of distress, and nomine pœnæ of twenty of twenty shillings for every month. Afterwards Sir W. Catesby and Robert joined in a fine of the said manor to the use of the said William and his heirs, who enfeoffed the plaintiff and died. Robert had issue then living. The defendant avowed for twenty shillings, parcel of five pounds due at Michaelmas, in the second of James, and because two hundred pounds were due nomine pœnæ for two hundred months, he avowed for fifty pounds of this nomine рапа. The defendant set forth all this matter by way of avowry except the nonage, and feoffment to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff in bar of the avowry shewed the nonage of him who confirmed, and pleaded the feoffment and averment of the life of the issue in tail. On this bar to the avowry, it was demurred and argued at the bar: and the sole question was, whether this debt be chargeable on the feoffee? because the rent was granted by tenant for life and confirmed by him in the remainder in tail, being within age at the time of the grant; for it was agreed if a rent be granted by tenant for life and confirmed by him in remainder in tail within age, that it is issuing out of the estate for life only, and merely a void grant as to the remainder; and if the tenant for life purchase the remainder or reversion, and dies, it shall

not bind the inheritance; and although he, the tenant for life, had made a feoffment over, his feoffee, after his death, should avoid it; but here because he that made the grant, was not only tenant for life, but had a remainder in tail, and after that a remainder in fee, the rent was issuing out of all his estates: and although it was void as against Robert, the son, who was next in remainder in tail, who confirmed it, yet for as much as this estate-tail was barred by the fine, and the limitation thereof was to the use of him and his heirs, who granted the rent, and the plaintiff being in, as feoffee to him, the court inclined in opinion for the avowant's right to the rent; for the estate-tail being barred, that privilege shall not extend to the feoffee, for he comes in under all the estates of the feoffor who granted the rentcharge, and therefore shall hold it charged; but because the avowry was for twenty shillings, parcel of five pound, and the fifty pounds was parcel of the two hundred pounds penalty, and he did not shew that the residue of the penalty was discharged; therefore it was held that the avowry was ill according to 20 Edw. 4. fo. 2, and 48 Edw. 3. fo. 3. And so without regard to the matter in law, it was adjudged for the plaintiff upon the insufficiency of the

avowry.

This case, as to the principal point, and as far as it is any authority, assumes that the times of the several estates for life, and in tail merged in the ultimate reversion in fee. The order of the merger must have been progressive. First, the time of the estate in tail general of Robert; secondly, the time of the estate, in tail male of Sir William; thirdly, the time of the estate in tail male of Robert, and ultimately the time of the estate for life of Robert, must have severally merged in the remainder or reversion in fee. As long as the several estates were in the tenancy of distinct persons, they were kept apart by the intermediate estates. But as soon as the several estates were vested in Sir William himself, they became subject to the rule of law, for the merger of the particular preceding estate.

From the same case we may extract the proposition, that when tenant for life with remainder in tail male to his infant son, with remainder to himself in tail male, with remainder to his son in tail general, with remainder to himself in fee, grants a rent-charge in fee, and afterwards the father and son join in a fine to the use of the father having the fee, and the father conveys by feoffment to a purchaser, all the particular estates are merged, and the ultimate fee is accelerated,