case Kirkham against smith d June S c Ves sen see Pitt v Pitt t r Outram v  hide W r in re Vardons trust Ch d tenant in tail of a trust estate with  remainder over can by will or settlement bar the remainder or without a  recover any more than tenant in tail of a legal estate lib Reg a foe f Erasmus  smith by his will date the that may after bequeathe several legacy devise all  his real estate subject to a term for payment of legacy to his old son Erasmus  smith and the heir male of his body remainder to his other son in like manner  remainder to his daughter in tail general with remainder in fee to Christ  hospital the testator die in and his son as they respective become entitle  enter on the estate and be all dead without issuemale but Hugh the last  survive son make a settlement by lease and release of the estate upon the  defendant lady strange and mrs Barry his two daughter with power of revocation  and by his will make some little alteration in respect to the house in Essex  the plaintiff be one of the daughter of the testator Erasmus and four daughter  and coheir of another of the testator daughter and the testator son be dead  without issue male the bill be bring to be let into possession of the estate  comprise in the entail and for a account of rend and profit the defendant by  their answer insist and make it appear in evidence that recovery have be  suffer by the son of Erasmus of all the estate comprise in the entail except  the Essex estate and as to that they insist that it be only a trust estate in  Erasmus the testator and that the entail be only of a trust the settlement and  will of Hugh smith be sufficient to bar the remainder under which the  plaintiff claim without a recovery be suf ambler fear note it appear in rib  Reg that the question be raise in the answer as state in the text foe and the  decree be in conformity with the opinion state to have be express by Lord  Hardwicke on this point the case appear to be that the Essex estate when  purchase by the testator be subject to a annuity of pound Payable to sir  Anthony brown for life and that the conveyance be make in to trustee and their  heir in who the ambler er p use be execute in trust in the first place out of  the rend and profit to pay the annuity and to pay the residue to the testator  Erasmus and his heir and after the determination of the annuity to stand seize  in trust for the testator and his heir Lord Hardwicke chancellor upon the open  of the case declare his opinion that the settlement and will be not sufficient  to destroy the remainder under which the plaintiff claim that to consider they  so will be to confound the rule of property to make a determination in equity  contrary to the rule of law and therefore stop the plaintiff counsel till he  hear what can be say to the question by the counsel for the defendant Mr  attorneygeneral for the defendant cite bowater v Ellis pre in Ch vern  Woolnough v Woolnough pre in Ch north v way vern turner v Gywnn vern carpenter  v Davis and washbourn v down vern Beverley v Beverley vern but his lordship  determine with great clearness and without any further argument that the  remainder in question be not bar and that the plaintiff be well entitle see  weal v low cite vern Salvin v Thornton bro c c Radford v Wilson atk Fletcher v  to lift Ves a quasi tenant in tail of a freehold lease may by surrender the  old lease and take a new one to himself bar the remainder over grey v man Eden  but he can destroy the remainder by will as it be once think he may see  Campbell v Sandys Sch Lef Dillon v Dillon bal be as to the difference between  a legal and equitable recovery see Ves