Estates tail, as created by the statute de donis, were generally recognized in the original states of this country.55 But great changes have been made by statute. In some of our states estates tail have been abolished, and a conveyance attempting to limit an estate tail would create a fee simple in the donee who would be first entitled to the estate under the form of the gift.56 In others the first taker has a life estate, with remainder over in fee simple.57 In still others estates tail may exist until barred, and this can be done by a simple deed or by one acknowledged in a manner provided by the statute.58 Fines and recoveries are not now in use, though they were used somewhat in the early history of our country.59 There are a number of states in which no statutory provisions as to estates tail exist. In these states, fees tail are as at common law unless, when the question comes before the courts, such estates are held not to be adapted to the genius of our in-stitutions.60
31. A limitation to one and the heirs of his body out of a life estate is called a "quasi entail," and is not affected by the statute de donis conditionalibus.
55 See Williams, Real Prop. (17th Am. Ed.) note 121.
56 In re Robinson's Estate, 149 Pa St 418, 24 Atl. 297; Ray v. Alexander, 146 Pa. St 242, 23 Atl 3S3; Durant v. Muller, 88 Ga. 251, 14 S. E. 612; Burns v. Page, 12 Mo. 358; Pruitt v. Holland, 92 Ky. 641, 18 S. W. 852; Prichard v. James, 93 Ky. 306, 20 S. W. 216; Lanham v. Wilson (Ky.) 22 S. W. 438.
57 Doty v. Teller, 54 N. J. Law, 163, 23 Atl. 944; Clarkson v. Clarkson, 125 Mo. 381, 28 S. W. 446; Brown v. Rogers, 125 Mo. 392, 28 S. W. 630. In some states remainders after estates tail are preserved if they take effect on the death of the first taker without issue, the entail being extinct by that event 1 Dembitz, Land Tit. 117.
58 1 Stim. Am. St Law, § 1313; Williams, Real Prop. (17th Am. Ed.) note 121; 1 Washb. Real Prop. (5th Ed.) 117, note 2; 1 Shars. & B. Lead. Gas. Real Prop. 109. As to barring the entail by deed, see Collamore v. Collamore, 158 Mass. 74, 32 N. E. 1034.
59 Jewell v. Warner, 35 N. H. 176; Lyle v. Richards, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 322; Carter v. Mcmichael, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 429; Wood v. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. 320.
60 Jordan v. Roach, 32 Miss. 481. In some states it has been held that the statute de donis conditionalibus is not in force, and that limitations to a man and the heirs of his body create fees conditional at common law. Pierson v.
An estate may be limited to one and the heirs of his body during the life of another person. The statute de donis does not apply to such an estate; so it is not a fee tail, but resembles more a fee conditional at common law.61 This form of limitation is usually called a "quasi entail."
Lane, Co Iowa, 60, 14 N. W. 90; Rowland v. Warren, 10 Or. 129; Izard v. Middleton, 1 Bailey, Eq. (S. C.) 227; Barksdale v. Gamage, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 279; Burnett v. Burnett, 17 S. C. 545.
61 Further, as to quasi entail, see Grey v. Mannock, 2 Eden, 339; Dillon v. Dillon, 1 Ball & B.77; Allen v. Allen, 2 Dru. & War. 307; Campbell v. Sandys, 1 Schoales & L. 281.