c Charles Howard v henry his brother duke OF norfolk there be a full note of  Lord nottingham argument in Charles can and a correct one from his lordship  own ms in Swanst ante case the Lord chancellor give his opinion contrary to  the opinion of the three judge that the limitation to Charles be good for  although there be a limitation to Henry and the heir of his body yet that be  upon a contingency which be to determine in a short time to wit in the life of  Henry and as for the resolution of child and bailiff freeman er p case cro  there be several circumstance in that case which be not in this for there one  reason give in roll abridgment be because the devise to the first man be to he  and his assign which in a manner give a liberty to dispose of the term and  then the devise be of all his title and interest in the say land which seem  repugnant to a limitation over and it appear by the record of that case that  the term have be several time assign and there be several purchaser before the  cause come in question which be fifty or sixty year after the say settlement  but admit that the case have be the same yet there have be different opinion  since in westminsterhall and he cite a case between wood and sander Charles  can Pollexf adjudge by the Lord freeman keeper Bridgman assist by raynsford  and Twisden where a trust of a term be limit to the father for life then to  the mother for life then to the son John and the heir of his body provide that  if John shall die without issue in the life of his father or mother then the  trust shall be for Edward the second son and it fall out that John die without  issue in the life of his father whereupon after the death of the father and  mother Edward prefer his bill for this term and it be decree to he by reason  that although there be a limitation to John and the heir of his body yet it be  upon a contingency which be to determine in the space of two life it be hold  well enough which be a strong case than this for here it be to determine in  the space of one life and he say he can not tell how to difference this case  from what my Lord chief justice Pemberton admit which be that this provision  may have be well enough make by limit one term to spring upon the  determination of another for there be the same reason to limit one trust of a  term to spring upon the determination of another and he say that in every case  where upon a contingency a fee may be limit upon a fee upon the same  contingency the trust of a term may be limit after another trust of the same  term and that be the reason of pell and brown case videlicet that although  there be a fee limit before yet it be upon a contingency which be to determine  in the life of a man and therefore hold good and he say it will be very  inconvenient if over strict construction shall be make to destroy the  limitation of trust of term for suppose a man have a term of year and make a  marriage settlement and assign the term in trust for he his executor and  administrator until the marriage and after the marriage then upon such other  trust as be agree upon no man ever say that this limitation be void because it  be first limit to a man his executor and administrator there be a contingency  to determine it in a short time and as to the objection that be make where  shall it stop for if it may be good after a limitation to a man and his heir  determinable upon a contingency to happen in the space of one life so likewise  for two life and so to twenty life to that he answer that westminsterhall will  quick stop it when they find it tend towards a perpetuity or when they freeman  find any inconvenience in it but when the contingency be to determine in one  or two life there be none and so he be of opinion upon the whole matter that  the plaintiff ought to have the term decree to he and a account of the profit  since the death of the Lord Maltravers but by reason the judge be of a  contrary opinion he suspend the enter up of the decree till he shall further  consider of it and it may be he may at last think fit to adjourn it into  parliament but see Ch can that no such thing be allow as a adjournment of a  cause out of a court of equity into parliament near difficulty and that it can  only be bring before parliament way of appeal note that one thing that move he  to give this opinion in this case be because at the time of the make of this  settlement the Lord Maltravers be a very weak man and so it be no remote  expectation that he shall die without issue