COMMON LAW 217
(v) Marriage : —To find a suitable match for an infant ward was the right of the Lord, and if the infant ward refused, the Lord was entitled to compensation.
The feoffor became free by putting his land in use. The burden fell on the person who acquired Scisin, namely, the feofee to uses.
(2) The second advantage was avoidance of forfeiture and escheat.
Land held by tenure at Common Law was forfeited to the Crown if the tenant committed high treason, and upon his conviction or on slavery for felony, it escheated to the Lord. These unpleasant consequences were avoided, if a tenant, before embarking upon some doubtful enterprise, had the prescience to vest his lands in a few confidential friends. The deliquent might possibly suffer the extreme penalty, but at least his family would not be destitute.
- Legal effect of putting lands in use :—
(i) The legal consequence of this practice of putting lands in use is an important point to note. It was to cut off the cestui que use in the eyes of the Common Law from all connection with the land. By a conveyance operative at Common Law, he had conveyed his estate to the feofee to uses and was, therefore, deprived of all Common Law rights over the land. He was nothing, the feofee was every thing. Instead of keeping scisin, he chooses to rely upon the confidence which he reposed in the feofee.
(ii) If the feofee failed or refused to carry out the directions imposed upon him or if he deliberately alienated the land for his own purposes, there was no Common Law action by which he could be rendered liable.
(iii) If a cestui que use was let into possession of the land by the feofee to uses, he was regarded as a mere tenant at will of the feofee to uses and could be turned out any moment, and in the event of contumacy could be sued in trespass by the feoffee.
- The nature of the remedy provided by the Court of Chaucery to protect the feofor must be clearly understood :—
(i) The Chancellor could not interfere with the jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts by proceeding directly against the land itself because the absolute title to the land was vested in the feofee by the conveyance. The Chancelllor could not disregard the fact that a feoffee was absolute owner at Common Law by virtue of the Common Law conveyance called feoffment whereby the land had been transferred to him.