case miller and johns against Manwaring tenant by the courtesy grant a lease  to a his heir grant another lease to b to commence after that to a in which be  a material erasure and another lease of the reversion of the land demise to c  the next heir grant another lease of the premise to d habendum from the end of  the say lease and misreciting the lease to b the inheritance of the premise  descend to e who make a lease to the plaintiff post W Jones roll Abr roll Abr  if a tenant by the courtesy make a lease for year reserve rend the lease be so  absolute determine by his death that no acceptance of rend by the heir can  make it good a lease to commence after the determination of a prior lease  shall begin present if the prior lease be void in law post a grant of  incorporeal hereditament be destroy by a erasure make in the deed after it be  deliver and quaere if the interest in thing corporeal will survive tenant in  fee grant a lease of the reversion of the say premise after the determination  of a lease of they make by his ancestor the ancestor lease become void by his  death this second lease therefore be also void for the lessor be in possession  have no reversion to grant ante a lease intend to commence in going to be  which misrecites the prior lease on which it depend in a material point shall  begin immediate   light b dyer Plowd lev Leon Vaugh Bac ab error of a  judgement in Chester in a ejectment of land in Blacon of the demise of sir  Randolph crew the that of Apgust car where upon a special verdict it be find  that John earl of Oxford and Elizabeth his wife in right of the say Elizabeth  be seize in fee of the manor of Blacon whereof the land in question be parcel  and have issue John afterward the say John earl of Oxford by indenture the  that of February Henry let that manor to whether Seaton for thirtyfour year  that Elizabeth die Henry and on the saint march Henry the say John earl of  Oxford die afterward that July Henry the say John the son then earl of Oxford  by indenture recite the lease to whether Seaton to be date that February Henry  let the say manor to Robert Rochester habendum after the end surrender or  forfeiture of the say lease to whether Seaton for thirty year and they find  that after the make of the say indenture the say word Henry be raze and alter  and make Henry and that afterward videlicet that march Henry the say John earl  of Oxford by indenture betwixt he and hamlet freere recite the lease to  whether Seaton that February Henry grant the reversion of the say manor and  premise to the say hamlet freere habendum the say manor and premise from such  time as the same shall revert and come to the possession of the say earl or  his heir by surrender forfeiture or otherwise for sixty year that afterward in  Elizabeth the say John earl of Oxford die seize croak car and the say manor  descend to his son Edward earl of Oxford that he by indenture betwixt he and  geoffrey Morley date that July Elizabeth recite whereas John his father by  indenture that July Henry demise to Robert Rochester the say sermon or croak  car er p manor of Blacon habendum for thirty year from the end or  determination of the lease make to whether Seaton date that February Henry for  twentyfour year which be a false recital for in Rochester lease it be recite  that the lease to whether Seaton be date that February Henry and regranted the  leaselto hamlet freere for sixty year to begin after the expiration surrender  or forfeiture omit the word or otherwise of the lease to whether Seaton the  say Edward earl of Oxford demise the say manor and sermon of Blacon to the say  geoffrey Morley habendum from the end of the say lease for fifty year and if c  so the question be whether any of these lease to hamlet freere or Morley be  good and be in be at the time of the lease make by sir Randolph crew for sir  Randolph crew claim the inberitance of the manor from the earl of Oxford and  sir William Norris claim the lease from Morley and freere and under he the  defendant claim and judgement be give in Chester for the plaintiff and now  error be bring of this judgement and the error assign in point of law that  judgement be give for the plaintiff where it ought to have be give for the  defendant and after several argument at the bar by roll and mason recorder of  London for the plaintiff in the writ of error and calthrop and sergeant Hedley  for the defendant it be now this term argue by the justice seriatim and all  the justice agree that the judgement in Chester be well give and shall be  affirm the first question move be whether the lease to whether Seaton be  determine after the death of John earl of Oxford who make it who be seize  thereof in the right of his wife and tenant by the courtesy or only  determinable by the entry of the heir for if it be only determinable then no  entry of the heir be find it be continue and the reversion be in the earl of  Oxford the son at the time of the lease make to hamlet freere but for this  point upon the first argument Richardson then live agree with the other  justice that it be determine and void by the death of the say John then earl  of Oxford tenant by the courtesy the wife be dead before and then whether  Seaton be but tenant at sufferance and the freehold in the earl of Oxford and  no reversion and for that point overrule it without further argument for it be  absolute determine by the death of the tenant by the courtesy and no  acceptance of the rend or confirmation after by the heir can make it have  continuance vide Edward acceptance   the case of Harvey v Thom cite   in pain  case second when the lease to Rochester began?And as to that all the justice  resolve that it begin present at the time of the seal because there be no such  lease in be to whether Seaton at the time of the lease to Rochester but  determine three year before croak car by the death of the say earl of Oxford  and there be no such lease make to whether Seaton but have other beginning and  other end than be recite and therefore it begin present vide Edward Br lease    a in the bishop of bath case blow throgmorton case   light b   a die three the  lease to Rochester be raze in a material part after the seal and delivery  thereof whether that rasure be a cause to make the lease void or if the lease  be good notwithstanding this rasure?And Jones and Berkley justice hold that  the deed be void by the rasure but the lease be good and remain in be  notwithstanding this rasure and as to that take a difference when a estate  lose his essence by a deed videlicet where it may not have a essence without a  deed as a lease by a corporation or of tithe or grant of a rentcharge or such  like if the deed be raze after delivery it determine the estate and make it  void but when the estate may have essence without a deed there although it be  create by a deed and the deed be after raze by the party himself or a stranger  that shall not destroy the estate although it destroy the deed wherefore  rasure here do not make the lease void and determine it but I argue to the  contrary in this point that forasmuch as it be a lease by the deed it be a  contract by the deed and the party himself who have the interest by the deed  raze that deed he determine the deed and his interest by his voluntary act as  if he have surrender and the contract be by deed he may not determine the deed  and the covenant but quoad himself be do destroy it but peradventure quoad the  lessor it may have essence if the lessor will but this be at croak car er p  his election and not at the election of the lessee see for this point   die    in doctor Leyfeilds case Edward Henry per brook Edward a fourthly whether the  lease to hamlet freere be good or void and that rest upon consideration  whether the lease of the land by the name of a reversion where he have the  land in possession and have no reversion as it be if seaton lease be determine  in fact and Rochester lease be void by the rasure or that he be not in  possession by virtue of the lease because it be not find that Rochester enter  by virtue of the lease and so can be a estate turn into a reversion be a good  lease?And for this point all the justice agree that it be mere a void lease  for the grant in the premise be only of a reversion and it be the intent of  the party to pass the reversion only expectant upon the former lease and when  there be not any reversion it can pass the land in possession for by the name  of a reversion land in possession can pass but by the dame of land a reversion  may well pass for he who will grant land in possession will rather grant they  in reversion but not so e turning and although the habendum be to have and to  hold the land that shall not pass the land in possession for it be intend he  shall have the land so return and deed be to be construe that they shall pass  thing accord to the intent of the party and the strong against the grantor  croak car accord to the apparent intent and here the grant and demise be only  of a reversion and the habendum shall enlarge it contrary to the grant so this  lease to hamlet freere be mere void and if it be not void it be determine in  time for it begin from the date and then it be determine by effluxion of time  see express authority that by the grant of a reversion if he have not a  reversion nothing passes   light b   Lofeilds case this point be recite to be  so resolve   b Saffyns case blow in throgmorton case and where it be say that  the word and other the premise will carry it it be answer that can be for  other be always another thing than that before mention and the reversion of  the manor of Blacon be express mention so other can be extend to it vide   a  Henry grant Br the five question be whether morley lease be in be at the time  of this lease make by the plaintiff?And it be resolve that it be not for that  misrecites the former lease and so have the same rule as the former where it  recite lease and there be not such therefore it shall begin from the date  which be in Elizabeth for fifty year end wherefore for all these reason the  judgement be affirm