Buying Titles

The purchase of the rights of a disseisee to lands of which a third person has the possession. BY, or BYE. A habitation. Co. Litt.; 18 App. Div. (N. y.) 142.

The purchase of the rights of a desseisee to lands of which a third person has the possession. When a deed is made by one who, though having a legal right to land, is at the time of the conveyance disseised, the sale is void as a general rule of the common law: the law will not permit any person to buy a quarrel, or, as it is commonly termed, a pretended title. Such a conveyance is an offence at common law and by a statute of 32 lien. VIII. c. 9. This rule has been generally adopted in the United States, and is affirmed by statute in some states; 3 Washb. R. P. *59G. In the following states the act is unlawful, and the parties are subject to various penalties in the different states: in Connecticut, Ilinman v. Hinman, 4 Conn. 575; Georgia, Helms v. May, 29 da. 124; Indiana, Webb v. Thompson, 23 Ind. 432; Galbreath v. Doe, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 3G6; Kentucky, Wash v. Mc Brayer, 1 Dana (Ky.) 566; Williams v. Rogers, id. 374; see Young v. Kimborland, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 225; Aldridge v. Kincaid, id. 393; Ewing's Heirs v. Savory, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 424; Massachusetts, Brinley v. Whiting, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 356; Wade v. Liudsey, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 407; Mississippi, Bush v. Cooper, 26 Miss. 599, 59 Am. Dec. 270; Xctr Hampshire, Dame v. Wingate, 12 N. II. 291; New York, Thurman v. Cameron, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 87; North Carolina, Den v. Shearer, 5 N, 0. Ill: Iloyle v. Logan. 15 N. C. 495; Ohio, Walker, Am. Law L".»7, 351; Vermont, Selleck v. Starr. 6 Vt 198; Bee By the transaction, the grantor does not lose his estate; Brinley v. Whiting, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 348; Sohier v. Collin, 101 Mass. 179. In Illinois, Fetrow v. Merriwether, 53 111. L'7!>; Missouri, Rev. star. 119; Pennsy Ux u v. Miller, 2 Watts (Pa.) ^~~: Ohio, Halls Lessee v. Ashby, 9 Ohio 98,::i Am. Dec. 421; Wisconsin, Stewart v. Bfc Sweeney, 14 Wis. 471; South Carolina. Poyas v. Wilkins, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 420; Maine, Rev. Stat, c. 73, § 1; Michigan, Crane v. Boeder, lii Mich. 82, 4 Am. Rep. 430; such sales are valid. See Champerty. BY. Near, beside, passing In presence, and it also may be used as exclusive. Rankin v. Woodworth, 3 P. & W. (Pa.) 48. When used descriptively in a grant it does not mean in immediate contact with, but near to the object to wbich it relates. It is a relative term, meaning, when used in land patents, very unequal and different distances; Wilson v. Inloes, 6 (Jill (Md.) 121.

The purchase of the rights or claims to real estate or a person who is not in possession of the land or ls disseised. Void, and an offense, at common law. Whitaker v. Co.ne, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 59; Brinley v. Whiting, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 356.

Defined under Buy in Black's Law Dictionary.

The purchase of lands or claims to lands from parties not in possession. v. Champerty. By. Near; near to; by the side of; with, or through, as means or mode; according to; by authority, allowance or direction of. By bill: commenced by bill, as distinguished from commenced by original writ, and applied in modern practice to suits commenced by capias ad respondendum. By estimation: a phrase used in conveyances, in describing the quantity of land conveyed, where it is not precisely ascertained by measurement. v. More or less. By the bye; incidentally. A term formerly applied in English practice to a peculiar mode of declaring, as distinguished from declaring in chief.

In old English law. By God and my country: the established formula of reply by a prisoner, when arraigned at the bar, to the question "Culprit, how wilt thou be tried?"