— Also termed feigned recovery. See MORTMAIN STATUTE. Cf. CESSIO IN JURE; praecipe quod reddat under PRAECIPE.
“Here’s how [the common recovery] worked. B, with the connivance of A, would bring a real action against A claiming falsely that he, B, owned the land and demanding recovery of it. A responded by claiming, just as falsely, that he had acquired the land from C and that C had warranted title to the land. When A demanded of C, also an accomplice of A, that he defend the title, C admitted falsely that he had, indeed, warranted the title. C allowed B to take a default judgment against A for the recovery of the land, and allowed A to obtain a default judgment against himself, C, for the recovery of land of equal value. The result of this fancy feudal footwork was to leave B with title to the land in fee simple and to leave A with his judgment against C. The judgment against C was viewed by the court as an adequate substitute for the entailed land. But when it came time for O or A’s lineal heirs to enforce the judgment, it would transpire that C had been selected by A because he had no land at all! (Why else would C have played along?) Did the court have any suspicion that A, B, and C were colluding? Of course they did — but how else, in the face of De Donis, could they unshackle land from the chains of the fee tail?” Thomas F. Bergin & Paul G. Haskell, Preface to Estates in Land and Future Interests 31–32 (2d ed. 1984).
