32 For the history of the right of alienation, see post, p. 390.
33 See Doebler's Appeal, 64 Pa, St. 9.
34 Tost, p. 322.
35 See post, p. 390; Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 42; Langdon v. Ingram's Guardian, 28 lnd. 360. Restrictions as to use may be valid. Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55.
36 1 Stim. Am. St. Law, § 2618; Williams. Real Prop. (17th Am. Ed.) p. 95, note.
37 See post, p. 392.
38 See post, p. 218.
Pay his debts.39 Land may also be taken from the owner under the power of eminent domain, but this can only be done on making compensation for the land so taken.40 Nor is there any way in which involuntary alienation may be avoided, except in a few states under the doctrine of spendthrift trusts.41 But an estate may be so limited to a man that it shall determine on any attempt at alienation, voluntary or involuntary, and so it will not be available to creditors.42 The restrictions on alienation by an owner in fee simple apply to lesser estates. If the owner of an estate in fee simple does not dispose of it during his life, it de scends to his heirs, and vests in them without any act on their part.43
39 Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet 25; Wyman v. Brigden, 4 Mass. 150; Nokes v. Smith, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 238. By different acts of congress a priority is given to the claims of the United States, and these acts are constitutional. U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358; Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cranch. 289. Similar statutes exist in some states regulating the order of preference of claims. 2 Werner, Adm'n. 772.
40 Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 140. See post, p. 494.
41 Post, p. 396. Keyser v. Mitchell, 67 Pa. St. 473; Ashhurst's Appeal 77 Pa. St 465; Hallett v. Thompson, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 583; Mcllvaine v. Smith, 42 Mo. 45; Lampert v. Haydel, 96 Mo. 439, 9 S. W. 780; Johnston v. Zane, 11 Grat (Va.) 552. Cf. Nichols v. Levy, 5 Wall. 433.
42 Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716; Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41: Emery v. Van Syckel, 17 N. J. Eq. 564. And see post P. 395.
43 In re Estate of Donahue, 36 Cal. 329.