Adam vers TERRETENANTS OF savage Intr mich W b r rot or plead and special  verdict lill Entr if the owner of a estate convey it to trustee by lease and  release to the use of himself for year remainder to trustee for year remainder  to the heir male of his body remainder to his own right heir no use can result  to he for life S c salk a to know facias be sue by the plaintiff as  administrator to I S upon administration grant to he by the archdeacon of  Dorset upon a judgement recover by the intestate against savage in this court  and the issue after plead be whether savage be seize of the land c in fee upon  which the jury find a special verdict that savage be seize in fee convey the  land by lease and release to trustee and their heir to the use of himself for  ninetynine year if he shall so long live remainder to the trustee for  twentyfive year remainder to the heir male of his body remainder to his own  right heir and the question be if savage during his life not have heir male of  his body shall have a use result to he for his life and so become tenant in  tail in possession or if no use can result and then there be no freehold to  support the contingent remainder to the heir male of the body of savage the  say remainder will be void and savage seize in fee as before and this be argue  by Mr Eyre for the plaintiff and by Mr sergeant Darnall for the defendant  Hilary term last and this term and the court hold that no use can result to  savage during his life and therefore the remainder to the heir male be void  and savage seize in fee and their reason be because the limitation to himself  for ninetynine year and to the trustee for twentyfive year and the heir male  be new use and new estate as if a man by lease and release or by covenant to  stand seize limit the use to himself for life or in tail these be new estate  and not parcel of the old estate accord Lord Raymond to   b Englefields case  and where in such case upon a conveyance such use be limit as suppose the  limitation to be good will pass the whole estate vide Fearn d Edward Com use  king d Edward Vol p a there no use will result contrary to the express  limitation of the party but if the limitation be void the conveyance of  necessity will fail if a man seize in fee convey his estate by lease and  release to the use of himself for life remainder to trustee for their life  remainder to the heir of his body he have a estate tail in he but be be but  tenant for life in possession otherwise if there have be no intermediate  estate in the trustee for their life and in the former case if a man make a  feoff it be no discontinuance but only divest the estate and for the same  reason in this case where the first limitation be only for year the remainder  to the heir of the body of the tenant for year be a contingent remainder and  void these be the reason of the chief justice holt and Powell justice say that  there be a difference where the limitation be upon a covenant to stand seize  and where upon a lease and release for where the limitation be to take effect  out of the estate of the covenantor there if the limitation be such as can not  take effect immediate or not till after the death of the covenantor as in the  case of Pybus v Midford lev there the law may mould the estate remain in the  covenantor into a estate for life but that can be where the limitation be to  take effect out of the estate of the trustee for want of a limitation much  less against a express limitation and therefore by he if there have be a  express limitation in the case of Pybus v Midford limit to the covenantor the  judgement will have be otherwise and for these reason the whole court order  last Hilary term that judgement shall be enter for the plaintiff unless cause  shall be show to the contrary the first day of this term and the first day of  this term Darnall queen sergeant show for cause that the plaintiff can not  have judgement because it appear upon the to know facias that he be not  entitle to it because the administration be grant to he by the archdeacon of  Dorset and therefore the grant of it be void for the judgement of this court  upon which the Lord Raymond er p to know facias be find be good notabilia if  it will not make good notabilia yet this grant of administration will be void  quoad this judgement because it lie out of the limit of the jurisdiction of  the archdeacon of Dorset against which it be urge by Mr Eyre for the plaintiff  that this court can take notice of the boundary of diocese and it may be that  this court be within the archdeaconry of Dorset for that archdeaconry may be  within Lord Raymond the diocese of London and this court will not intend the  contrary since the contrary do not appear to they but per holt chief justice  this court will take notice of the limit of ecclesiastical jurisdiction which  be part of the law of the realm under which we live and consequent it will  take notice that a judgement of the king bench be not within the jurisdiction  of the archdeacon of Dorset and for this reason the whole court hold that  judgement ought to be give for the defendant