clxxi Piers and hoe case trespass forfeiture construction of deed in a action  of trespass it be find by special verdict that a seize of land in the right of  his wife be her jointure by a former husband he and his wife make a feoff to a  stranger and his heir habend to the use of the stranger and his heir during  the life of the wife only Shutleworth the same be a forfeiture for if the same  feoff have be without any use express then it shall be to the use of the feoff  and his heir and by consequence a forfeiture and as the case be here it be  also a forfeiture for during the life of the wife the use be express to the  use of the feoff and his heir and the remainder of the feesimple be to the use  of the feoff sure the husband and his heir Popham I conceive that here be a  forfeiture for here be several limitation limitation of the estate unto one  and of the use unto another and the word for the life of the wife do not refer  to the estate but to the Leonard er p use with neighbor antecedent and be  resemble the same to the case of Leonard Sturton in which he be of council a  man grant land habend unto the grantee to the use of the grantee and the heir  of his body the same be no estate tail in the grantee but only a estate for  life for the limitation of the use can extend the estate cook contrary the  case be that a wife of one Piers be tenant for life of the jointure of the say  Piers take to husband Hoc they both by deed grant totum suum messuagium to one  clarke habendum to he and his heir for the life of the wife only I conceive  that here be not any forfeiture for it be but one entire sentence and if there  be a double construction of a deed that which be most reasonable shall be take  so as wrong be not do and therefore these word for the life of the wife shall  refer unto both sure the estate and the use and their intent be not to commit  a forfeiture as appear by the word of the deed Leonard for they grant solum  messuagium and that be not but for the life of the wife ad solum use of the  feoff and his heir during the life of the wife and violence shall be offer to  this word solum if the feoff or his heir shall have ultra the life of the wife  and the word so much can otherwise be expound but that the estate for life  only shall pass from they and be cite the case of e avowry a give land unto b  in tail and for default of such issue to the use of c in tail render rend the  same render shall go to both the estate so a lease for life to a the remainder  to b to the use of c the same use go out of both the estate and not only out  of the remainder so here upon the same reason these word for the life of the  wife shall refer to the first estate as well as to the use and in such case  the rule of Bracton ought to be observe videlicet Benignae to make are  interpretation a word ut res to greater extent to be strong how to pass away  as the case in h in a cessavit the plaintiff count that the tenant hold by  homage fealty suit at court and certain rend and in the do of the service  aforesaid the defendant have cessed and in not do of homage and fealty a man  can cease by two year but it be hold that the say cessavit shall be refer to  such service only in which one may cease and that be suit of court and rend  and if plead shall have such favourable construction a much strong shall a  deed e be a man lease for life and by the same deed grant power unto the  lessee to take and make his profit of the say land in the best manner shall  seem good to he without contradiction of the lessor or his heir yet by those  word it be not lawful for he to do waste for there it be say that in  construction of deed we ought to judge accord to that intent which be accord  to law and reason and not to that which be against reason see e accord so in  the principal case the word in the deed of feoff shall be so expound that the  estate be save and not destroy Popham contrary the case put by coke be not  like to the case in question for where the rend be out of both estate the same  be but reason for the rend be in respect of the land and because be depart  with both estate it be reason the rend issue out of both and the like reason  be of the case of a use for if a man make a lease for life to a the remainder  over to b the same shall be to their use respective and if he do express the  use the same shall be accord and shall bind both estate but there clark have  two estate one by the commonlaw and the other by the statute but the word  subsequent for the life of the wife only can refer to both estate a give land  to one his heir for forty year the same be but a plain term for year but if a  feoff in fee be make to one his heir to the use of another for forty year  there the fee passes to the feoff and the term to beneficiary and use gawdy  conceive that it be not any forfeiture for these word during the life of the  wife only be put in the deed to express the intent of the party and therefore  the same shall not be void and he conceive that they be put in to exclude the  forfeiture and therefore they shall serve for that purpose and afterward it be  resolve by all the justice except gawdy that it be a forfeiture for by the  feoff the feesimple passes and that to the use of the feoff the estate and the  use be several thing and the limitation for the life of the wife can extend to  both and as to the book of h Br forfeiture tenant for life alien in fee to b  habendum Himself heir nest for term of the life of the tenant for life the  same be not a forfeiture for the whole be but the limitation of the estate and  afterward it be adjudge that it be a forfeiture gawdy continue in his former  Leonard er p opinion and Wray say that he have confer with the other judge of  their house and they all hold clear that it be a forfeiture cro roll Owen Cr  Cr hob cro cro Leonard trin Elizabeth in the king bench rot