case shears against lammas Qure whether a avowry under a lease for year state  its commencement from the Michaelmas precede and that the plaintiff by virtue  of the demise aforesaid enter c on the Feast of saint Michael aforesaid be  good replevin the defendant avow that t S be seize in fee of the place where c  make a it be make subsequent to the demise and the main point upon the first  argument arise upon its be so videlicet whether it be a total revocation of  the devise during the lease so as nothing shall pass or only a revocation  quoad the term as to the possession only so that the reversion and rend shall  notwithstanding pass and the court hold the latter note to former edition a  lease thereof to the plaintiff habendum for nineteen year from modern report  Michaelmas c render rend c and afterward devise the land to the defendant and  his heir and die then he set forth that the plaintiff in replevin army  dimission predict The lease be set forth to commence from Michaelmas and the  entry to be ad holiday consecrated michaelis army dimission to go into so that  it appear to be a seize note to former edition b to go into but do not say on  what day et to be ind possessionatus and that so much rend be due on such a  day and be in arrear he distrain c and so justify the take and there be a  demurrer to this avowry it be object that the entry be lie too general for it  ought to be army pron  interrog  indeed dimission the plaintiff in replevin to  go into on such a day et to be ind modern report er p possessionatus because  unless the particular day of his entry be set forth he may enter before the  lease commence and then he can be no termor but a seize and in such case the  avowry ought to have be for a trespass and not for rend for wherever a action  of debt be bring for rend reserve on a lease for year or where a justification  be make for rend arrear on a lease it must be special show that the person  from who the rend be due enter on the day the lease commence but on the other  side it be insist that the allegation in this avowry be sufficient to show  that the entry be before the distress take the court it be true there be no  particular day set forth in this avowry when the plaintiff enter but yet these  word army pron  interrog  indeed dimission to go into et to be ind  possessionatus must be intend of a legal entry by virtue of the demise but  admit that he have actual enter before the commencement of the term yet these  word et to be ind possessionatus shall be take to continue the possession  afterward my Lord coke in his commentary on Littleton have a parallel case  videlicet if tenant for life in remainder seize the tenant in possession he  bath gain a fee by such seize but by the death of the disseizee that wrongful  fee be turn into a rightful estate for life by operation of law so in the  principal case the continuance of the possession by the plaintiff shall be  intend by virtue of the lease by which he may defend himself in a action of  trespass or ejectment bring by the lessor but the court be not clear in  opinion no judgement be givenSee pope v Skinner hob Nishart v casson hob  rutter v mill cro James Brooksbank v tailor cro James Evans v Crocker Mod a  but the follow be a parallel case be adjudge in Michaelmas term follow