case baker against Willis and other easter term car roll the king be bind by  the statute Henry c S although be be not name in it and therefore if a husband  levy a fine of the wife land to the king yet the wife may enter after the  death of her husband S C Jones SC roll ab   b roll Rep Hutton   light b  hargrave edit note Cowp land give during coverture to husband and wife in tail  special be a inheritance to the wife within Henry c if husband and wife be  tenant in tail and the husband alone levy a fine it be a good bar to all their  issue if husband and wife be tenant in tail and the husband alone levy a fine  it bar all the issue but the wife may enter within five year after the death  of her husband and this entry will revive the estate tail as to her so as to  render her capable of receive a confirmation of it from the reversioner ante  ejectment upon a lease for seven year of a message and land in Murial grange  in the parish of Belton upon not guilty plead and a special verdict find the  case be John Beamond and Elizabeth his wife tenant in tail to they and the  heir of their body of the gift of sir Burgundy foster remainder to the right  heir of the say husband the say John Beamond have issue betwixt they Francis  Beamond in Edward levy a fine sur cognusance de law come Ceo to king Edward  with proclamation the king in the seven year of his reign grant those land to  Francis earl of Huntingdon and his heir afterward in September year Phil mary  the say John Beamond die upon the ten of September the same year Elizabeth  enter and Francis earl of Huntingdon die seize of the reversion which descend  to Henry earl of Huntingdon who by indenture betwixt he and the say Elizabeth  in Reg Eliz recite that the say Elizabeth hold the tenement in tail of the  gift of sir Burgundy foster remainder expectant to the he heir of the earl of  Huntingdon ratify allow and confirm to the say Elizabeth all her estate title  and interest in the say tenement habendum et tenendum the say tenement to the  say Elizabeth and the heir of the body of her and the say John Beamond  engender with warranty of the say tenement croak car to the say Elizabeth and  the heir of the body of her and the say John Beamond engender against he and  his heir Elizabeth die Elizabeth Francis Beamond enter and have issue sir  Henry Beamond sir John Beamond and Francis Beamond and die Elizabeth sir Henry  Beamond by indenture covenant to stand seize to the use of himself and the  heir male of his body remainder to sir John Beamond his brother and the heir  male of his body and afterward die without issue male his wife enseint with a  daughter afterward call Barbara the wife of Woolstan Dixi the lessor afterward  sir John Beamond die and have issue sir John who enter and let to the  defendant and Woolstan Dixi enter in right of his wife and let to the  plaintiff prout in the declaration who enter and the defendant oust he the  question be whether the plaintiff have any title it be diverse time argue at  the bar and now at the bench by Berkley that judgement ought to be give for  the defendant first because the fine with proclamation do bar the estate tail  which John Beamond and the heir of the body of John Beamond and Elizabeth  claim for he be bar as heir of the body of his father can never claim that  estate for he be bar by the act of parliament Henry c and Henry c and he much  insist upon the validity of fine that they be perpetual bar against the heir  in tail of he who levy the fine second be argue that Elizabeth by her entry  immediate after the death of croak car er p her husband reduce the estate tail  back to her and it be lawful and save to her by the statute of Henry c of fine  and by the statute of Henry c of discontinuance and that she be tenant in tail  and not tenant in tail after possibility as it have be argue at the bar nor in  nature of such a tenancy in tail but a absolute tenant in tail to all purpose  three that the tail be so bar by the fine and the act of Henry c and Henry c  that he can claim for he be a person disable to claim as a person attaint  although he have a pardon can claim by descent and as one present by simony to  a benefice be void can be present to it again for he be a person disable by  the Act of parliament and by the confirmation to Elizabeth nothing service to  her nor to the heir of the body of her and John Beamond because he in  reversion have but a possibility to have it after the death of John Beamond  without issue and during the time he have issue he may not claim and a  possibility can be transfer to another and John Beamond who enter shall have  it as a occupant for the heir general be bar by the fine and he in reversion  can have it as long as there be any heir of the body of John Beamond and  Elizabeth in be and any who enter shall have it as a occupant as in the case  assize wherefore he conclude that judgement shall be give for the defendant  for he have the priority of possession croak car but I argue to the contrary  that judgement ought to be give for the plaintiff first I agree that the fine  with proclamation be a absolute bar and discharge of the estate tail against  John Beamond and the heir of his body by the express word of the statute of  Henry c and it be quasi extinct against he by the fine   sir George brown case  and Henry second I agree that when Elizabeth enter within the five year after  the death of John Beamond who levy the fine she be absolute tenant in tail for  the fine quoad the say Elizabeth be absolute avoid and she be in as in her  former estate which be a absolute estate tail and no tail after possibility of  issue extinct and if she be to sue any real action she be to name herself  tenant in tail dyer and three that notwithstanding the estate tail be bar b  the fine yet this confirmation be by indenture have revive the estate tail for  although be in reversion by reason of the fine may enter and have the land and  the issue after the death of the wife be bar to claim it yet by this  confirmation he in reversion have exclude himself against his confirmation to  claim it for he may exclude himself of his estate and as he may avoid so be  may confirm   Mayos case Henry f n b a where tenant in ancient demesne levy a  fine c and although at the time of the confirmation he have nothing to confirm  and his word of confirmation will not add to the estate of the wife who have a  estate tail yet by the word habendum the tenement there be a new estate tail  extract out of the reversion and settle in Elizabeth so as that confirmation  be quasi to achieve et to come into being and as the case in Littleton feme  tenant for life take a husband a confirmation to the husband and wife habendum  the land to they increase the estate to the husband   b and whereas it be hold  that she have as great a estate before as she have by the confirmation and  therefore the confirmation be void I hold that although she have a estate tail  yet she take by the confirmation for a deed shall never be void when by any  intendment it may be allow to be good and to have any operation and she take  it for the benefit of the heir of her and her husband body and although the  heir be bar by the fine yet be be restore to the estate tail by the  confirmation for as the fine be a estoppel to the heir to claim against the  fine so the indenture of confirmation be a estoppel to he in reversion to say  that be shall not hold it in tail and there it be a estoppel against a  estoppel which set the matter at large as it be   light b Henry and although  it be say by my brother Berkley that the earl of Huntingdon have but a  possibility to have it after the death of Elizabeth and that he have it but as  a occupant to have and enjoy it during the time that John Beamond have issue  of the say Elizabeth I utter deny that he have but a possibility for he have  it as in right of his reversion if his confirmation have not bar he and that  appear by austin case a and in Husleys case b a Plowd b cro Elizabeth croak  car er p where a estate be bar or discharge or extinct as sir George brown  case c term it where be in reversion shall have it as in point of reversion  and if he have but a possibility yet that may be well transfer by confirmation  or release to he who have the possession croak car of the land as it be  resolve Fulwoods case a and Lampets case b and as it be hold corbet case c  that there be no condition proviso or any other title but may by apt word be  determine the one way or the other so here every part agree the estate tail  shall be revive or at leastwise new create and the law shall adjudge it accord  to their interest and therefore I be of opinion that judgement shall be give  for the plaintiff but Jones and Brampston chief justice defer their argument  that day bear that the party be about agreement and afterward by our mean they  compound and sir John Beamond agree to pay l and the other agree to assure the  estate by fine or otherwise c et such means prediction to deprive of sense to  be and no judgement give but Jones tell I that he be clear of opinion that the  plaintiff have good title and that the confirmation be good and create a good  estate in Elizabeth descendible to her heir croak car michaelmas term car in  the king bench sir John Brampston Knt chief justice sir William Jones Knt sir  George croak Knt sir Robert Berkley Knt justice sir John blank Knt attorney  general sir Edward Littleton Knt solicitor general