case price against Langford Hilary term James roll if husband and wife levy a  fine sur do giant et render of land of which the husband be seize in fee ex  part of a mother and take back a estate to they and the heir of their body the  nature of the descent be thereby alter and the estate on their die without  such issue shall descend to the heir of the husband ex part of a father SC  salk SC Carth SC holt ejectment special verdict the case be that I S be seize  of land in fee as heir of the part of his mother and he and his wife with  warranty levy a fine t I n and I d and they by the same fine do grant and  render to the use of the husband and wife and the heir of their two body  remainder to the right heir of the husband the question be if this do alter  the dissent or change the estate so as to make the heir by his father to be  inheritable Mr row for the plaintiff argue that it do not that the fine alter  no estate but that it remain as it be before the law shall reject the new  title and judge the heir in of the old so it be in case of devise to a heir  the law shall reject the devise and judge he in of the estate descend in a  fine sur grant et render the conusee passes nothing but in reality the  conusors intention govern the whole a feme covert need not to be examine in it  a a use may be of a fine sur grant et render though the opinion be otherwise  former b if the conusee of such a fine be lessee for year that will not  extinguish the term and that be a argument he have no possession c a conusee  of such a fine can forfeit suppose the conusee of such a fine be a villain to  the king may the king have seize the land suppose he be a abbot will that be  within the statute of mortmain d he can bring a quid law proclaim because he  have no estate there be no instance in which he have a seize as to find that  writ it be like the case of a surrender shower KB a dyer more b Poph Leon  Henry pl c cro James   cro car Edward Fitzherbert petition d see Geo c shower  KB er p of a copyhold and there be never any estate in the lord he be but a  instrument Leon in Lord Cromwell case   hold there that the conusee of a fine  be most like a demandant in a recovery who be only a formal instrument for the  conveyance of the land dyer   light then further a fine sur grant et render be  a fine executory and here be no execution find whether he be not put to a to  know facias or whether the estate may riot be execute by a entry be a quaere  but if the latter yet here be no such entry find as will execute this fine for  it be to go into to call ut haeres and that will not do Fitzherbert to know  facias a entry to call be not sufficient it be not every entry that will seem  to vest a estate sand entry in ejectment will not amount to a entry to avoid a  fine Hooper e contra this do alter the estate for the first institute be  express that by a reinfeoffment he take as a new purchaser he cite as positive  and express authority the case of white v Geerich cro Elizabeth and sir Hoyle  Finchs case   and as to the case of use those come not up to this for the use  go accord as the land shall have do if no such conveyance have be the word  render ex way termini import that he have the estate in he it be true he can  not bring a quid law proclaim because the instant it be in he it go to the  other then for warranty it may be annex to it cro Elizabeth holt chief justice  the case of use come not to it for before the statute they be but thing in  equity it be a estate in the conusee and the render be a new purchase now upon  a use at commonlaw he can not reinfeoff to the heir of the part of the mother  because there can be no such use this be a conveyance at the commonlaw the  conusor now claim under the render the case of use be different if a feoff be  make to a man attaint before and he reinfeoff the king shall have it which  show the estate be in he and this fine and render be a feoff and refeoffment  at commonlaw per totan curian judgement be give for the defendant e