extinguished; and that if so, estates might be incumbered which had been long enjoyed without interruption. (B. Shower. Ed. Northey.)
The defendant, in support of the judgment, stated, that Thomas Lewis was seised, and acknowledged the three statutes upon each of which the premisses were extended; and that the executor of Knight, the connusee of the first statute, and the executor of Gerrard, the connusee of the second statute, assigned over their estate and extended interests unto Edward Lewis; and that Thomas Lewis, the connusor, by deed, 25th and 26th May, 1657, conveyed the premisses to John Lewis and his heirs, and levied a fine with proclamations to him: and that John Lewis devised to the said Edward, as stated by plaintiff; and that Edward, after John's death, levied a fine, and died without issue; and that thereupon the Earls of Huntingdon and Scarsdale, in right of their Ladies, entered upon the premisses; and that Anne, the wife of defendant Grenville, obtained administration of Burroughs and Gerrard, and, with defendant her husband, entered satisfaction on Gerrard's statute, and afterwards entered under the extent on the statute to Elwaies and Burroughs; and that thereupon the Earls, in plaintiff's name, in Hillary, 34 and 35 Car. II. brought an ejectment in the King's Bench against the defendant Bernard Grenville, and that, after a long trial at bar, a special verdict was found, and very often solemnly argued, and judgment given for defendant; and that afterwards a writ of error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber, and there, after many solemn arguments, the former judgment in the Court of King's Bench affirmed; and that to reverse these two judgments, the plaintiff brought a writ of error in the House of Lords; and that the only thing insisted upon by plaintiff's part was, that defendant's extended interest on Elwaies and Burrough's statute for 5000l. was barred, either by the fine levied by Thomas, or by the fine levied by Edward Lewis, and five years non-claim after these fines. Defendant insisted that the judgments [68] given were well warranted by law, because the extended interest upon Knight's statute, being the first statute, was merged by being assigned over to the same person to whom Gerrard's extent on the second statute was assigned; and that the extent on Gerrard's statute, being a reversion, or at least in nature of a reversionary interest, drowned and merged the extent upon Knight's statute, which was an interest for years in possession. And defendant insisted, that the fine levied by Thomas Lewis, who was but tenant at will, with reversion in fee expectant on the three several extents, operated only upon the reversion in fee, and did not divest the extended interest upon the respective statutes of Gerrard and Burroughs; and that consequently, five years non-claim did not bar those extents. And further, that the fine, afterwards levied by Edward Lewis, he being possessed of the extended interest upon Gerrard's statute, with a reversion of Burroughs's upon his extent, with reversion in tail to the said Edward Lewis, operated as a forfeiture of Gerrard's extent, of which, though Burroughs might immediately have taken advantage, he was not compellable to do so; and, admitting Gerrard's extent was barred by the fine of Thomas Lewis, and five years non-claim, yet as to Burroughs, and all strangers, the right had existence in law; and that it was not necessary to make any claim upon Burrough's statute until Gerrard's statute appeared satisfied on record, and defendant making his claim by entry, within five years after satisfaction entered upon record on Gerrard's statute, was sufficient to prevent Burrough's extent from being barred by the fine. And further insisted, that this case did not differ in reason from the common and known case: A. tenant for life, remainder in fee to B. disseissed; disseizor levies & fine, and there is five years non-claim, though the estate of tenant for life be barred, and the remainderman may enter upon the five years non-claim by tenant for life, yet he may wave such entry, and shall have a new five years after the death of the tenant for life to make his claim. So in the principal case, though Burroughs might, had he so pleased, have entered upon the five years non-claim by Gerrard, yet he might stay till Gerrard's estate, which stood in his way, was spent, and expect, till satisfaction was entered upon the record of Gerrard's statute; for as the death of tenant for life, is the proper and natural determination of an estate for life, so the entering satis-[69]-faction upon record is the proper and natural determination of an extent upon a statute; and in the one case as well as the other, before such determination, the remainderman, or reversioner, is not compellable to make his claim to avoid the fine. (N. Wright. T. Powys.)
184
