atkins case Pierson v shore July the that a who have a bishop lease to her and  her heir during three life devise the same to her daughter a infant and direct  the guardian and trustee to make purchase for the infant benefit the guardian  upon the decease of one of the you life take a new lease for three new life  the infant die the lease shall go to the heir of the infant ex part of a  father for the new lease be to be consider as a new acquisition and to vest in  the infant as a purchase a who have a bishop lease to her and her heir during  three life devise the same to her daughter who be a infant and direct the  guardian and trustee appoint by her will to make purchase for the benefit of  the infant after the death of the mother the guardian upon the death of one of  the three life take a new lease for three new life and the infant be now dead  the question before the court be whether this new lease shall go to the old  use to the heir ex part of a mother as the first lease will have do or whether  to the heir of the infant ex part of a father Lord chancellor this be a  descendible freehold and if nothing have be alter will have go to the heir ex  part of a mother but the new lease be to be consider as a new acquisition and  to vest in the infant as a purchaser how then will this go consider as a new  purchase if the infant hide live till full age and then have surrender the old  lease and take a new one this certain will have go to the heir ex part of a  father so if all the life have die and the guardian have renew the lease it  will likewise have go to the heir on the part of the father and this be not  like the case of a infant personal estate turn into real for the reason of  that be be still consider as personal estate be because of the different age  at which the infant may dispose of his personal and his real estate and not  out of favour to any one representative more than another whitter v whitter p  W note d rook v Warth Ves indeed in the case of of a lease in trust whatever  new alteration be make it be still subject to the old trust so holt v holt  Charles can Abney v miller post vol Edward v Lewis post vol Pickering v vowles  bro Charles Rep raw v Chichester Amb bro Charles Rep S c note Owen v William  Amb bro Charles Rep S c in note taster v Marriot Amb say vide Darrel v  Whitchol Charles Rep it have be object that this be a act do by a guardian  only during the minority and ought not to prejudice any who take by  representation it be a act mere voluntary and not out of necessity atkins if  this indeed have be wanton do by the guardian without any real benefit to the  infant it will have be proper to come into a court of equity to be relieve  against it but here be a just and reasonable occasion for what the guardian  have do for he be direct by the mother to make purchase for the benefit of the  infant here one life be dead surrender the old and take a new lease be the  most beneficial purchase for the infant that can be and therefore ought to  have the same consequence as if do by the infant herself at full age and go to  the heir ex part of a mother the case of mason v day be exact in point with  the present Prec in Chan a feme purchase a church lease to her and her heir  for three life and die leave a infant daughter two of the life die the infant  guardian atkins er p renew the lease this be a new acquisition and shall go to  the heir on the part of the father Eq ab pl S c pale yellow Eq Rep SC see Amb  where this case of Peirson v shore be cite under the name of mason v shore his  lordship therefore dismiss the bill bring by the heir ex part of a mother