As to the right of the purchaser from the life tenant to claim the rights of a bona fide purchaser, as against the remainder-man, where he purchases in good faith and without notice, it has been held that such a purchaser takes subject to the rights of the remainder-man, and that possession in such a case, does not mean ownership so far as an innocent purchaser is concerned. In the English case of Hoare vs. Parker in the second Term Reports, page 376, Dunford and Easts Reports, the facts were as follows: "The action was trover by the plaintiffs who claimed under the remainder-man against the defendant to whom the goods had been pawned by the tenant for life. Admiral Stewart by will gave his plate to trustees for the use of his wife durante viduitate, requiring her to sign an inventory, which she did at the time the plate was delivered into her possession. She afterwards pawned it with the defendant, for a valuable consideration, who had no notice of the settlement, and before the commencement of this action, she died. A demand and refusal was proved. The question for the court was whether the defendant was bound to deliver up the plate without being paid the money he had advanced on it. The court held the right of the remainderman was clearly established, and that the pawn-broker had no hen, even though he had no notice of the settlement, and that until the legislature saw fit to change the law, possession alone in such a case could not be considered ownership.

12 Barnard vs. Campbell, 58 N. Y.,

73. 13 Sharp vs. Parks, 48 I11., 511;

Hoffman vs. Connor, 20 Wend., 21. 14 Newkirk vs. Dalton, 17 I11., 413, 1 Yeates R., 478.