M'Kee's Leffee v. Pfout

The Court flopped Ingerfoll, when he was about to reply, 'and delivered their opinion as follows. M‘Kean, Chief JtiJlice. We entertain no doubt on the prefent queilion. Tne Legiflature has, at various periods, and on a variety of fubjetfts, departed from feudal ceremonies and principles, in relation to the transfer and defeent of property: but, in the. prefent inftance, the ail of Aflembly meant only to give to a grant of lands, a greater effeil upon the eftate, on recording the deed, than could previo fly have been enjoyed, without livery of feizen; It never contemplated that ci.rcum-ilunce, as an inftiument to work a forfeiture, on the common law doftrine of alienation bv tenant for life, or years. .Shippen, Jyflice. F ro n the words of the ail of Aflembly., it is plain, I think, that the Legiflature did not mean to work the forfeiture of a particular eftate, by the provifion for recording deeds. In allowing to deeds recorded the fame torce and effeit, as feoffments with livery, the intention is exprefslv re- *490 ftrifled to “giving poffeffion and feifen, and making good the title and aflurance of lands, tenements, and hereditaments. It is, therefore, merely a facility and benefit extended to the grantee. Yeates and Smith, JaJlices, concurred. Judgment for the Plaintiff.