MR. HALLIWELL is perfectly right in his opinion as to the expression
"heretofore the _inheritance_ of William Shakspeare." All that that
expression in a deed means is, that Shakspeare was the absolute owner of
the estate, so that he could sell, grant, or devise it; and in case he did
not do so, it would descend to his heir-at-law. The term has no reference
to the mode by which the estate came to Shakspeare, but only to the nature
of the estate he had in the property. And as a man may become possessed of
such an estate in land by gift, purchase, devise, adverse possession, &c.,
as well as by descent from some one else, the mere fact that a man has such
an estate affords no inference whatever as to the mode in which he became
possessed of it. The authorities on the subject are Littleton, section ix.,
and Co. Litt., p. 16. (a), &c. A case is there mentioned so long ago as the
6 Edw. III., where, in an action of waste, the plaintiff alleged that the
defendant held "de hæreditate suâ," and it was ruled that, albeit the
plaintiff had purchased the reversion, the allegation was sufficient.
In very ancient deeds the word is very commonly used where it _cannot_ mean
an estate that has descended to an heir, but _must_ mean an estate that may
descend to an heir. Thus, in a grant I have (without date, and therefore
probably before A.D. 1300), Robert de Boltone grants land to John, the son
of Geoffrey, to be held by the said John and his heirs "in feodo et
hæreditate in perpetuum." This plainly shows that _hæreditas_ is here used
as equivalent to "fee simple." I have also sundry other equally ancient
deeds, by which lands were granted to be held "jure hæreditaris," or
"liberè, quietè, _hæreditariè_, et in pace." Now these expressions plainly
indicate, not that the land has descended to the party as heir, but that it
is granted to him so absolutely that it may descend to his heir; in other
words, that an _estate of inheritance_, and not merely for life or for
years, is granted by the deed.