IB  <«in  a  note  to  the  passage  just  cited  [8  Day.  Cony.  (3d  Bd.)  267]  refer-
ence is  made  to  a  suggestion  th^t  the  provision  in  8  &  9  Vict.  c.  106,  §  8,  pro-
tecting contingent  remainders  from  failure  by  the  forfeiture  of  the  preceding
estate  of  freehold,  is  not  confined  to  forfeiture  in  consequence  of  any  of  the
ordinary  causes  of  forfeiture,  hilt  also  protects  the  contingent  remainders  in
the  eyent  of  the  life  estate  determining  under  a  proyision  in  the  instrument
creating  the  limitations,  such  as  a  shifting  clause.  Thds  yiew  is,  it  is  said,
fayoured  by  the  circumstance  that  otherwise  the  word  'forfeiture'  would  be
without  meaning,  since  the  liability  of  a  life  estate  to  forfeiture  by  the  act
of  the  tenant  for  life  has  ceased  altogether  with  the  abolition  by  the  same
act  of  the  tortious  operation  of  a  feofiTment  Id.  268,  note  (u).  The  writer,
indeed,  afterwards  adduces  a  reason  against  the  conclusion  to  which  he  ad-
yerts,  and  seeitis  inclined  to  approye.  But  the  reason  he  adyances  in  its  fa-
Tour  seems  to  be  grounded  on  a  misapprehension.  Forfeiture  by  the  act  of
a  tenant  for  life  did  not  cease  to  be  possible  with  the  enactment  depriying
feoffments  of  their  tortious  operation.  A  life  estate  was  formerly  Uable  to
forfeiture  not  only  by  means  of  a  conyeyance  executed  by  the  tenant  and  op-
erating by  wrong,  but  also  for  yarlous  other  acts  by  him.  2  Blk.  Com.  267,
268.  Though  not  all  of  these  were  still  operative  at  the  time  of  the  passing
of  the  act  of  1845,  yet  forfeiture  for  treason  and  felony  continued*  until  1870,
and  then  from  its  abolition  forfeiture  for  outlawry  was  excepted.  33  &  34
Vict.  c.  23,  I  1.
