Title to English land may be affected by the marriage of the owner, while domiciled abroad. Re Be Nicols.

{q) Viditz v. O'Hagan, 1900, 2 Ch. 87; see above, p. 786, and n. (n). It may be remarked that the principle, on which this decision is based, may be invoked against the doctrine laid down in the other cases cited in note (m), above, as according to the elder authorities it was exactly This capacity which was denied to married women by the common law.

(r) Re Be Nicols, 1900, 2 Ch. 410.

(s) Ibid.

(t) Be Nicols v. Curlier, 1900, A. C. 21.

(u) Stat. 29 Car. II. c. 3, ss. 4, 7.

Corporations, as conceived by the common law, have as full capacity to purchase, hold and dispose of lands as any natural person, who is free from disability (z). But under the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, 1888 (a), which in this respect repealed and replaced the Mortmain Act of Edward I. and other statutes (b), the assurance of land (c) to or for the benefit of a corporation in mortmain, otherwise than under the authority of a royal licence or a statute, is a cause of forfeiture to the lord of the fee; or if he fail to enter within a year, to his superior lord (d); and in default of entry thereon by any mesne lord, to the Crown (e). It follows that a corporation, although it may purchase lands, cannot retain them without being especially enabled to hold lands either by a licence from the Crown (f), or by an Act of Parliament (g). This applies to land assured to a corporation by way of mortgage as well as for its own use absolutely (h). And lands vested in trustees on trust for a corporation, or otherwise assured to a corporation in equity, without the authority of such licence or statute, are equally liable to forfeiture with those in which the corporation has taken a conveyance of the legal estate (i). The instances in which corporations are empowered by statute to hold land without a licence in mortmain are too numerous to be particularly mentioned in a work like the present. Some particular corporations are authorised by Act of Parliament to hold lands without any restriction; others are allowed to hold lands not exceeding a certain annual value. And in other cases the alienation of land, or of a limited quantity of land, into mortmain is permitted for particular purposes, which are charitable or for the public use or benefit (k). The most important statutory exception to the general law prohibiting a corporation from retaining land is that of joint-stock companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1862 (l). This Act expressly empowers every such company to hold lands (m): but provides that no company formed for the purpose of promoting art, science, religion, charity or any other like object, not involving the acquisition of gain by the company or the individual members thereof, shall, without the sanction of the Board of Trade, hold more than two acres of land (n).

Corporations.

(x) Forster v. Bale, 3 Ves. 696, 5 Ves. 308; Bale v. Hamilton, 5 Hare, 369; Gray v. Smith, 43 Ch. D. 208, 211.

(y) Above, pp. 496 sq.

(z) Case of Sutton's Hospital, 10 Rep. 23, 29b - 31a; 1 Black. Comm. 475; Colchester v. Lowten, 1 V. & B. 226, 246; Blackburn, J., Riche v. Ashbury, etc. Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 224, 263; and see Co. Litt. 2a, 2b, 13b, 94b,44a, 250a, 300b, 301a, 325b. It should be noted, however, that, before the Wills Act, 1837, a devise of land to or in trust for a corporation was invalid, unless the corporation were empowered by statute to take land by devise; for the old statutes authorising the alienation of fee simple estates by w ill did not permit of the devise of land in favour of a corporation; stats. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 1; 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 6, s. 4; 1 Jarm. Wills, 65 - 67, 4th ed.

(a) Stat. 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42, s. 1.

(b) Stats. 7 Edw. I. st. 2; 13 Edw. I. c. 32; 18 Edw. III. st. 3, c. 3; 15 Ric. II. c. 5.

(c) Here including' tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, of any tenure; see stat. 54 & 55 Vict. e. 73, s. 3, replacing 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42, s. 10 (iii); above, p. 398. It appears that the old Statutes of Mortmain did not prevent a corporation from taking a lease of lands for a term of years (unless to limited as to be in effect perpetual) or from taking any interest in lands, which would not be perpetual; see Vin. Abr. Mortmain (B. 20 - 22); Jesus Coll. v. Gibbs, 1 Y. & C. 145, 147, 148; Vigers v. Dean of St. Paul's, 18 L. J. Q. B. 97, 103; Tudor. Charitable Trusts, 382, 3rd ed. As the Mortmain Act of 1888 is a consolidation Act, these cases appear to be authorities upon its construction; above, p. 402, and n. (q).

Mortgage of land to a corporation.

Assurance of land in trust for a corporation.

(d) Any superior lord must enter within six months after his inferior's right of entry has expired.

(e) Under the old Statutes of Mortmain the Crown could not enter for such a forfeiture until after office found; 3 Black. Comm. 258, 259; Doe v. Redfern, 12 East, 96, 114; Doe v. Evans, 5 B. & C. 587, n.; but the necessity of an inquest of office as a condition precedent to the exercise of a right of re-entry by the Crown was abolished by stat. 22

& 23 Vict. c. 21, s. 25.

(/) Stat. 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42, 8. 2, replacing 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 37: see Co. Litt. 2b, 99a, and n. (1); 2 Black. Comm. 268 sq.; Wms. Real Prop. 76, 19th ed.

(g) Sug. V. & P. 685.

(h) See Shelford on Mortmain, 10, n. (e). By stat. 33 & 34 Vict, c. 34, corporations in the United Kingdom holding moneys in trust for any public or charitable purpose may invest such moneys on any real security authorised by or consistent with the trust without incurring any forfeiture of the lands so taken in mortgage; above, p. 401, n. (l)).

(i) The Mortmain Act of 1888 expressly prohibits the assurance of land to or for the benefit of, and the acquisition of land by or on behalf of , a corporation into Mortmain, except under the authority of a royal licence or statute; stat. 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42, s. 1 (1); and see stat. 15 Ric. II. c. 5, repealed by the Act of 1888; Shep. Touch. 509; 1 Sand. Uses, 339, note (e), 4th ed.; Lewin on Trusts, 40, 85, 6th ed.