Waiver of a tort. Said of the act of a person who, by treating a matter as a contract, waives his right to pursue it as a tort with the peculiar remedies, penalties and consequences belonging to it in that character.1 Thus, the owner of personalty may waive a tortious conversion of it.2 If property be tortiously taken or converted, the tort-feasor may be sued in trespass or trover, or the injured party may waive the tort and sue in assumpsit - as if there had been an implied contract. The defendant cannot set up his own wrong-doing to defeat the action, and a judgment will bar an action ex delicto. A party may waive any provision of a contract, statute, or constitution intended for his benefit. The doctrine of waiver is especially important in connection with covenants in lessees; as to these a waiver may be actual or express, and implied, as, in the last case, from taking rent after notice to quit for covenant broken. Where no principle of public policy is concerned, a party is at liberty to waive a statutable provision intended for his benefit.5 A man may not barter away his life, freedom, or substantial rights. Thus, in a criminal case, it has been held, he cannot consent to be tried without a jury, or by a jury of eleven men.. The public has an interest in his life and liberty. Neither can be lawfully taken except as prescribed by law. That which the law makes essential in proceedings involving the deprivation of either life or liberty cannot be dispensed with or affected by the consent of the accused.7 In a civil case he may consent to an arbitration, or decision by a single judge. He may waive removal into a Federal court, in each recurring case, but, not by an agreement in advance thus to forfeit a right on every occasion. And a party cannot waive jurisdiction. See ABANDON; ACQUIESCENCE; PRIVILEGE, 1, Personal; PROTEST, 2; VOID. Occurs in the expressions ancient wall; common wall, division-wall, partywall; and private wall. See FLEE. Ancient wall. A wall built to be used, and in fact used, as a party-wall, for more than twenty years, by the express permission or continuous acquiescence of the owners of the land on which it stands. 1 Common or division-wall. See Partywall. Party-wall. A wall built partly on the land of one person and partly on the land of another, for the common benefit of both, in supporting timbers used in the construction of contiguous buildings.2 A wall of which the two adjoining owners are tenants in common - the most common and primary meaning; also, a wall divided longitudinally into two strips, one belonging to each of the neighboring owners; also, a wall which belongs entirely to one of the adjoining owners, but subject to an easement or right in the other to have it maintained as a dividing wall between the two tene ments; and, also, a wall divided longitudinally into two moieties, each moiety being subject to a cross-easement in favor of the owner of the other moiety.3 The principle upon which the law as to party-walls is based is the same as that applied to partition fences. This principle has been recognized in the law of France for ages. The absolute right of property is not invaded, for that absolute involves a relative, in that it implies the right of each adjoiner, as against the other, to insist upon a separation by a substantial boundary line. A right to a party-wall is a right which an owner of land has to build a division-wall partly over his line on the land of another. It is therefore a right appurtenant to land, and may properly be called an easement or servitude. In the city of Philadelphia, for example, this relation between adjoiners is regulated livery with right to reclaim reserved. See also Okey by statute. He that first builds on his line must erect v. State Ins. Co., 29 Mo. Ар. 111 (1888). Harway v. New York City, 1 Hun, 630 (1874), Davis, Presiding Judge. Tome v. Dubois, 6 Wall. 554 (1867), cases. May v. Le Claire, 11 Wall. 235-36 (1870), cases. • Shutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 159 (1872); Re Cooper, 93 Ν. Υ. 512 (1883), cases. • White v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 4 Dill. 183 (1877). • Cancemi v. People, 18 Ν. Υ. 135-38 (1858); State v. Stewart, 89 N. C. 563 (1883); Swart v. Kimball, 43 Mich. 448-49 (1880). Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 579 (1884), Harlan, J. the wall at his own expense, and it is then, as one whole wall, an essential part of his house, and real estate. Yet half of it rests on his neighbor's land, which is charged with a servitude for this purpose. The neighbor cannot use the wall without paying for so much of it as he intends to use; and, on paying, he may use it, and then the wall becomes a common wall, and each lot appurtenant to the other, as far as needed for its support. The price to be paid by the adjoining 1 Eno v. Del Vecchio, 4 Duer, 63 (1854), Bosworth, J. 2 Brown v. Werner, 40 Md. 19 (1873), Robinsor, J. 3 Watson v. Gray, L. R., 14 Ch. D. 194-95 (1880), Fry, Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 451 (1874); 1 Story, J.; s. c. 37 Eng. R. 22. Eq. § 670; 25 Am. Law Reg. 402-4 (1886), cases. Evans v. Jayne, 23 Pa. 36 (1854).