barn versus freeman S c carter ejectment ejectment of a message in London  special verdict William late marquis of Winchester be seize of the house in  question in fee and be so seize Jan James make a feoff of it to John Lord  petre and other trustee to they and their heir the say John Lord petre and the  other trustee July James for twenty pound lease this by bargain and sale to  sir Anthony main for year which lease be make to attend the inheritance by  virtue of which main enter and the next day the Lord petre and the other  trustee do grant this house to the earl of Denby and other and their heir to  the use of Lucy wife of the say marquis for life the remainder to his son John  paulet for year the remainder to his heir the lessee attorned the lord marquis  and Lucy have issue William Lord saint John and John their second son Lucy die  and the marquis become tenant by the courtesy and die William their son and  heir enjoy and let we it to darcy William Lord saint John die without issue  and John the second son now lord marquis enjoy this and on the first of Jan he  lease this to the Spanish ambassador for six year and after make another lease  for four year after the determination of the former lease he hold it till and  after the that of may the marquis in consideration of building do demise it to  Edward Jermin for year under the rend of with covenant to levy a fine for  confirmation of the say term and in Trinity term the same year of a fine sur  cognizance de law come Ceo c with proclamation for confirm the lease be levy  no entry or claim be make within year but Jermin be in quiet possession accord  to his lease Jan main make his will and make Parkhurst executor march  Parkhurst by indenture of assignment not deliver upon the premise but off the  land assign and leas this to freeman the defendant Edward Jermin be now and  then in possession a Jermin make a demise to Chard for year Chard make his  executor and die they September car do assign to the plaintiff lessor who  enter and make a lease to the plaintiff until the defendant enter and eject he  and they find William late marquis and William Lord saint John and John now  marquis have constant receive the rend and profit carter the case in short be  this the marquis of Winchester make a lease in trust to attend the inheritance  and he continue in possession and make several small lease which be expire and  after his heir now the marquis of Winchester leas the premise to Jermin lessor  of the plaintiff for year which yet continue and covenant to levy a fine and  do so and five year and nonclaim pass the lessee executor for year assign to  the defendant off the land before the say lease and fine to Jermin who within  year after the fine make no claim Windham sergeant pro to ward off here be two  thing in this case whether any of these act which have be find to be do by the  marquis be carter er p valid or can be so assign but upon the land so that  what these lease or fine make by interruption in turn it to a right will be  the question I will examine this as the case lie when the marquis make a lease  for year to sir Anthony main and this declare to be in trust for he and for  his inheritance whether when boxingglove and trust enter whether there be any  disturbance in that I think not as Littleton in his chapter of release cesti  and use be capable of a release it be now of a trust as of a use before the  statute the possession of cesti and trust be the possession of he that make  the lease then the case go on the boxingglove and trust be in possession make  many lease to many person which be now go though these lease do make a  disturbance of the right yet when they be expire as they be find to be the  marquis come in again as before the right be restore again I liken it to  Littleton case of a discontinuance the law prefer a rightful estate before a  wrongful estate which be the ground of Littleton in the case of remitter the  great doubt of the case be upon the lease make to Jermin which have  continuance yet to this time I will examine it by this case croak car blunden  versus Baugh hill car a make a lease at will to b b make a lease for year to c  c bargain and sell to the heir of a the question be whether there be a seize  and displace of the estate by the lease or not if there be a seize who be the  seize resolve it be no seize but at election and if there be a seize tenant at  will be the seize and not tenant for year the marquis be tenant at will when  tenant at will make a lease for year if that be a seize but at election then I  conceive it will serve our turn that in our case here be nothing do to  determine this election for the executor have assign it whereby he take it to  be no displace it be clear in many case where a wrong be do the party may take  it one way or other as he will as it be there put if one enter into the land  of a infant the infant may charge he as guardian and thereby admit he to be in  without I wrong our case be more strong our case be he that be tenant at will  have the inheritance in he and then there can be no seize the Lord coke tell  we what a seize be comment Litt b it be a wrongful put a man out of seize a  entry and carter a ouster in our case if there be a seize the same person who  be seize must be disseizee for in Blundels case he which make the lease be  seize and the marquis who make the lease have the inheritance in he and so he  must be seize and disseizee which he can be object there may be a displace of  the term which come between resp it can be a displace of the term I enter upon  the lessee and claim his term this will be a seize of the inheritance now the  inheritance be preserve the term be likewise keep object here be a lease what  shall it operate resp the Lord coke comment on Littleton on that case where a  feoff be make to a future use of the feoff last will the feoff occupy the land  at will of the feoff   Litt foe he give the reason how it come to be a estate  at will he do dispose of the interest at law and not of the mean profit and  because the profit be not dispose of it be a estate at will in he because he  may receive these profit now this lease shall amount to a contract for the  profit a copyholder make a lease by custom or licence yet in judgement of law  the copyholder be but tenant at will yet he may make a lease and this lease  make no disturbance in every lease for year there be privity of contract and  privity of estate the lessor and lessee be conclude to say that there be not  such estate for between they there be privity of estate but between other this  work not as to have operation upon their estate though there be a lease yet it  arise thus upon the contract shall not disturb the possession Cesty and trust  have the power of the profit when he that have the profit do contract for a  lease though there be a lease it shall not work upon the freehold or  inheritance but mere as in relation to the profit but here be more the lessor  tenant at will have the power upon the freehold for the freehold and  inheritance be in himself lessor and lessee if the lessor grant a lease for  the same term as we be as he have grant before if without deed it be void for  so much as be grant before as in Plowden if by way of future interest then it  be good for so much but if by deed indent it be good in point of estoppel this  lease make by this tenant carter er p that have the freehold and inheritance  in he may work by estoppel upon the indenture or by future interest if there  be attornment it may have operation upon the profit upon the estoppel or upon  the attornment it be a mischievous case if such a lease shall be the pull out  of other man estate many who be boxingglove and trust do make lease to several  person and look upon themselves as owner and to have the interest if this  shall disturb the whole estate it be mischievous if a man make a mortgage and  the agreement be that the mortgagor shall take the profit he leas it and do  not always keep the profit in his own hand and then a fine be levy shall this  and nonclaim bar so I conceive this lease make to Jermin do not disturb the  estate carter the next be upon the fine it be a fine by tenant at will and if  there be not a displace before the fine will not do it it be a question  whether this estate be bar I e the term and whether this fine bar it it can be  no bar fine and nonclaim be no bar for it be a fine levy by tenant at will if  a fine be levy by tenant for year or at will they may say part Finis nothing  to have Rep Farmors case Rep Saffins case if a fine by lessee for year will  not do it much less a tenant at will whether he have a rightful fee or a  wrongful fee will not be the question but whether he have a estate whereof a  fine may be levy another thing be in Saffins case and all our book a fine do  not bar but where there be a displace of the estate Rep Margaret Podgers case  No fine nor warranty shall bar any estate in possession reversion or remainder  which be not divest and put to a right and so in Symmes case Rep and so in the  commentary stowel and Zouches case if the lease make to main be not turn to a  right then the fine can work if the seize be but upon election if it work not  upon the estate but the profit if there be not a displace of it this way I  conceive the fine be no bar because its a fine by a tenant at will and maines  estate be not turn to a right and the fine be no bar it work nothing that way  if it have be one that be a lessee for will that have a bare lease at will and  nothing else something may be say but we have the inheritance then he have a  estate whereof a fine may be levy and we can say part Finis nothing to have  but to look upon it that the fine work upon this inheritance will not  prejudice the lease for the fine will look upon what be above it and it look  not upon that which be below it as he in reversion levy a fine it will not  work upon the lease which be below it I conceive in this case neither the  entry nor the lease that be make and that this lease be not any seize and it  disturb not the possession and that the fine do not bar nor displace and so  the term not be bar nor turn to a right it follow the term may be assign out  of the land I pray judgement for the defendant Bridgman chief justice its a  case of great consequence on both side on the other side if long lease be keep  on foot and the owner of the land have keep it on foot for particular purpose  and he make a lease for a time and sell the land year after it be a  mischievous case that this trust shall not be disturb Isham and morris case in  cro car be cite against you in that very point there be two other resolution  in that case which I hardly believe to be law