Bridgman oh berry v white the Lord Bridgmans argument wherein be deliver the  opinion of the whole court Michaelmas car h hark ms No fol this case be  mention in Opie v Thomasius I Keble and it appear to be cite by another name  in Hardres see Sugden on power Edward but it be decide on the special pen of  the power with reference to a lease in reversion not with reference to a lease  in reversion not with reference to a concurrent lease upon land let at the  time of the creation of the power see appendix f a lose note of the argument  of counsel in this case be in No of the Ayscough ms in the British museum  where p the book cite be   Litt dyer   h dyer Br formedon dyer cro Godbolt  parrett rolfs case dyer the earl of Northampton case I cro Hobson case and  Whitlocks case a hill car two rot lease for year in reversion under a special  power to a tenant for life to grant lease for year or life sustain the  instrument create the power have direct a particular rend to be reserve a  reservation informal in respect of the person to who the rend be make Payable  will carry the rend to the remainderman because Bridgman oh er p the  informality consist in surplusage only and the word of the actual reservation  satisfy the power hark ms No fol No fol ejectment Bridgman c j Robert berry  have bring a action of trespass and ejectment against John white of one  message one water milne two hundred acre of land one hundred acre of meadow  two hundred acre of pasture and three hundred acre of wood with the  appurtenance upon the demise of Henry Howard esquire that October car ii for  five year from Michaelmas then last pass and declare to his damage of upon not  guilty plead the jury find a special verdict that sir Charles Howard be seize  in fee of the tenement specify in the declaration and be so seize April James  demise they to Elizabeth Ridgeley for forty year then next follow pay yearly  during the say term S d at Michaelmas and ladyday that she enter by virtue of  that lease and that be thereof possess and sir Charles be seize of the  reversion pasch James a fine be levy in the common plea of the tenement  aforesaid with the appurtenance thereto belong inter alian sur conusance de  law come Ceo c with proclamation by the say sir Charles Bridgman oh Howard sir  Robert Howard sir William Howard and sir Edward Howard to Thomas earl of  Suffolk and the Lord William Howard by the name of the c and that the say fine  be levy to the use specify in a indenture date that April James between the  say sir Charles sir Robert sir William and sir Edward Howard of the one part  and the say earl of Suffolk and Lord William Howard of the other part which  indenture they find in haec word whereby sir Charles Howard c covenant by fine  or other good assurance to convey to the say earl and Lord William Howard  before the Feast of saint James next ensue the say honour c to the use under  and upon the power proviso and limitation thereinafter express that be to say  to the use of sir Charles for his life without impeachment of waste and after  to the use of the first son of sir Charles and the heir male of his body with  like particular remainder to the second three c and eight son of Charles and  the heir male of their body and for default of such issue to the use of sir  Robert Howard for his life without impeachment of waste and after his decease  to the use of the first son of sir Robert Howard and of the heir male of the  body of the say first son with like remainder to eight son and for default of  such issue with like remainder in use to sir William and his son and sir  Edward and his son with several other like remainder to sir Thomas Howard and  Theophilus Lord Walden other son of the say earl and the son of the say sir  Thomas and Lord Walden and for default of such issue to the use of the right  heir of the say Charles provide always and it be covenant grant conclude and  agree by and between the say party to these present that it shall and may be  lawful to and for the say sir Charles Howard at all time and from time to time  during his natural life and after Bridgman oh his decease to and for the say  sir Robert sir William sir Edward sir Thomas and Theophilus Lord Walden and  every of they respective be lawful seize and lawful tenant of the freehold in  possession of the say honour lordship manor and premise or any of they or of  any part of they or any of they by virtue of any limitation of use by these  present before limit and of any estate accord to the same to be execute at all  time and from time to time during their natural life respective to make any  lease or grant of any part of the premise usual lease heretofore or now on  lease whereof they or any of they respective shall be lawful seize or be  lawful tenant of the freehold in possession to any person or person for any  term or term of year or life or life so as such estate and term exceed not the  number of twentyone year or three life in possession and remainder or for any  number of year determinable upon one two or three life at the most and so as  the same be not make by any covenant grant or clause dispunishable of waste  and that so much yearly rend or other profit as be now reserve yield and pay  respective for the same or more be reserve and it be also covenant grant and  agree between the say party that the say earl of Suffolk and Lord William  Howard and their heir shall from and after such lease and grant last before  mention so make and grant accord to such power formal express stand and be  seize of all and singular the land and tenement so Bridgman oh er p lease and  grant to the use of such lessee and grantee their executor administrator and  assign accord to the tenor purport and true meaning of the same grant and  lease and afterward to such use intent and purpose as in these present be  limit and declare and it be grant declare and agree by and between the say  party to these present for they and their heir respective that the say fine  and other assurance so covenant and intend to he have levy and make of the say  premise as aforesaid shall be and shall be adjudge construe and take to be and  that the say earl of Suffolk and Lord William Howard and their heir shall by  virtue thereof and of these present state and be seize of for and concern such  and so much of the say premise as shall be so demise grant Bridgman oh lease  or in use limit as aforesaid to the use of such person and person and of his  and their executor administrator and assign respective to who any such demise  or demise lease or lease or limitation of use or use shall be so make limit or  grant as aforesaid for and during such and so long time and term or term for  the which such demise or demise lease or lease or limitation of use or use  shall he have or make as be aforesaid so as every such person or person to who  any such demise or demise lease c shall be so make and his and their executor  administrator and assign shall and do several and respective yearly well and  true perform yield and pay to such person and person to who the reversion or  remainder of the say premise so happen to be demise c shall for the time be  appertain or belong or to his or their bailiff or receiver for the time be the  yearly rend or rend or other duty and service in or by such demise lease or  limitation of use or use reserve or agree or by custom to be pay and at the  day or time and in such sort manner and form as in or by such demise c shall  be in that behalf limit and accord to the reservation therein to be contain to  he and they to who the next and immediate reversion or remainder of the same  premise shall by the true intent of these present belong the jury further find  the death of the say sir Charles without issue and the seize of sir Robert of  the reversion and that be be so seize and Elizabeth Ridgeley possess sir  Robert by indenture Feb car do demise the say tenement in who c to Robert  villiers habendum to he his executor and assign for ninetynine year full to be  complete and end if the say Robert villiers shall so long happen to live the  say term to begin by from and after the death surrender forfeiture or other  determination of the estate which the say Elizabeth Ridgeley then have in the  say tenement with the appurtenance and not before render and pay therefore  yearly after the commencement of the say term and during the continuance  thereof to the say sir Robert Howard his heir and assign S d at Michaelmas and  by equal portion and further Bridgman oh yield and pay as in the indenture  which indenture of lease be find in haec word wherein there be a further  reservation of heriot suit of court and other service custom and duty as at  any time before be pay yield or due for and in respect of the same by the  custom of the honour of Clan or otherwise and all reasonable fine and  amerciament as at any time during the say term shall be assess tax or impose  upon the say Robert villiers his executor or assign for default or neglect of  do the suit of court or for any contempt by he or they in the same court with  a clause of entry and distress for sir Robert his heir avid assign if the say  yearly rend or suit of court heriot sum of money or any of the say custom and  duty before reserve or any of they be behind in part or in all by the space of  twentyeight day and the jury find that by virtue of this lease in the life of  sir Robert Howard before the time of the trespass and ejectment and immediate  after the expiration of the say term of the say Elizabeth Ridgeley the say  Robert villiers enter and be thereof possess and that the say rend of S d be  ancient the usual rend pay for the tenement aforesaid and that the say lease  to the say Elizabeth Ridgeley be in be continue and unexpired at the time of  the say lease make to the say Robert villiers that sir Robert Howard afterward  have issue Henry Howard the lessor his first son whereby the say Henry Howard  become seize of the remainder to he and the heir male of his body and sir  Robert be so seize with remainder to his son as aforesaid and Robert villiers  be possess as aforesaid saint April car sir Robert die and that the say Henry  Howard the say that day of October car do enter as in his remainder upon the  possession of the say Robert villiers and do Bridgman oh er p expel and move  he and be seize prout c and be so seize the same day do lease to the plaintiff  prout c and that the plaintiff enter and be possess until the defendant as  bailiff and by special command and in right of the say Robert villiers do  enter upon the possession of the plaintiff and do oust he but whether upon the  say whole matter in form aforesaid find the entry of the Bridgman oh say  defendant upon the possession of the plaintiff be good and lawful they know  not c and refer it to the consideration of the court et si c upon this special  verdict it appear the question be upon the validity of the lease make by sir  Robert Howard whether it be accord to the power before recite but before we  come to the consideration of that question there be one thing have be object  and insist upon at the bar which make a end of the case if it can be answer  and that be that if the lease be good and pursuant to the power it be  determine before the entry whereon the action be bring for it be a lease ita  quod he pay his rend and for nonpayment it cease in point of limitation and it  appear that Mr villiers have enter in the life of sir Robert and that he die  in April of the king and the lessor enter not till October so that there be  above seven year during all which time it be not find that he pay any rend and  it be part of his title to his lease for as he pay his rend that be the  express clause that the fine and other assurance shall be to the use of such  lessee for as he pay the rend to he in remainder but this objection in my  opinion receive a clear answer first as this deed be pen I do not conceive at  least it be a question whether this estate be determinable by nonpayment of  rend for there be three clause considerable to this purpose first the power to  make lease so as they exceed not three life c and that so much yearly rend or  other profit as be now reserve or yield for the same be reserve this clause  alone have be sufficient to make good the lease pursue the power in other  thing without make the lease conditional second there be a express clause  immediate ensue that the earl of Suffolk and Lord Howard and their heir shall  stand seize of the premise so lease to the use of such lessee accord to the  tenor of such grant or lease and afterward to the former use this second  clause when the lease be make make it complete accord to the tenor of the  lease but the lease have no clause of limitation or cessation for nonpayment  and therefore it cease not for nonpayment it be true there be a three clause  ex abundant that the covenant fine and assurance shall be to the use of such  lessee so as they pay the say rend but the lease be make good by the two  precedent clause without such limitation I do not see any reason to make it  subject to a limitation by this last clause which be total distinct from the  rest and begin with new word of covenant indeed the usual course of Bridgman  oh assurance be to have the word of limitation annex to the power or at least  to the clause that the conusees shall stand seize which be not in our case but  second admit the lease subject to this limitation yet the difference which be  take in Ughtreds case hold clear in this between a interest or estate to begin  upon a condition or act to be perform and a estate or interest which passes  present and be to be defeat by matter ex post facto on condition subsequent in  the latter case which be we the defendant deed not show forth the performance  of the condition but the plaintiff must show the breach of it Ughtreds case if  it be consider be far strong there a annuity be grant pro exercise duty which  cease if he do not execute yet there be his count he need not aver the  execution of it there he be plaintiff who be to make his title here he be only  to defend there it be in his count here it be in a verdict but three the  conclusion of the jury in this special verdict I conceive exclude the bring  this in question we be to doubt of no more than the jury doubt of their  conclusion be si super totan means per jurators in form prediction experience  the justice shall conceive that the entry of white the defendant be not lawful  then they find for the plaintiff not otherwise now whether this rend be pay or  not be not means per a swearer experience and therefore we must judge upon the  matter as it S find and if there be not other sufficient matter find by the  jury for the court to judge upon the court upon this verdict which be  conditional if super means experience the court shall hold the Bridgman oh er  p defendant entry unlawful it not appeal whether the rend be pay or not pay  can give judgement for the plaintiffThis paragraph have be stop and alter from  the ms which stand thus and if there be not other sufficient matter find by  the jury for the court to judge upon the plaintiff upon his verdict which be  conditional if super totan means experience the court shall hold the defendant  entry unlawful it not appear whether the rend be pay or not pay can give  judgement for the plaintiff the passage in italic be of a handwriting  different from the rest of the manuscript b so that for all these reason I  conceive notwithstanding this objection the case remain entire to be consider  whether the lease make by sir Thomas Howard to Mr villiers be pursuaut to the  power reserve to make lease and for that the case be this Elizabeth Ridgeley  be lessee for forty year of the land in question at S d rend sir Charles  Howard be seize of the reversion of the premise inter alian settle the same by  indenture and fine to the use of himself for life remainder to his first and  other Bridgman oh son in tail remainder to big brother sir Robert Howard for  life and so to big first second and other son in tail with remainder over to  other brother for their life and with like limitation to their son with power  to make lease to this effect that it shall be lawful for sir Charles from time  to time during his life and after his decease for sir Robert and the rest  respective be lawful seize and lawful tenant of the freehold in possession of  the say honour and premise by virtue of any limitation of use in that  indenture limit to make any lease of any part of the premise usual lease  heretofore or now in lease whereof they or any of they respective shall be  lawful seize or be lawful tenant of the freehold in possession unto any person  or person for any term or term of year or life or life so as such estate and  term exceed not the number of twentyone year or three life in possession and  remainder or for any number of year determinable upon one two or three life at  the most and so as the same be not make by any covenant grant or clause  dispunishable of waste and that so much yearly rend or other profit as be now  reserve yield or pay respective for the same or more be reserve afterward sir  Charles die without issue sir Robert Howard during the continuance of the  lease to Elizabeth Ridgeley in car by indenture leas the premise in question  to Robert villiers under who the defendant claim habendum for ninetynine year  if Robert villiers so long live the say term to begin by from and after the  death or other determination of the estate which Elizabeth Ridgeley there have  of and in the same and not before and reddendo hence after the commencement of  the term and during the continuance thereof to the say sir Robert Howard his  heir and assign S d yearly which be the ancient rend at Michaelmas and ladyday  by equal portion with a clause of distress in case of nonpayment after  twentyeight day Elizabeth Ridgeleys lease expire villiers enter sir Robert  Howard have issue Henry the plaintiff lessor die Henry the lessor pretend  villiers lease not to be accord to the power enter and make the lease to the  plaintiff and the defendant as bailiff to villiers reenter so that the single  question be whether the lease make by sir Robert Howard to villiers be accord  to this power there have be several thing object against this lease which may  be reduce to these head saint that these power tend to alter estate and  disturb possession settle by law ought to be take strict as power of  revocation and condition be   fitzwilliam case Cr Bridgman oh that be lie for  a ground they urge dly that when this lease to villiers be make Elizabeth  Ridgeley be in possession and that neither the letter nor the intent of the  deed reach to give sir Robert Howard power to make the lease before be be in  possession dly if sir Robert Howard have power to make a lease during  Elizabeth Ridgeleys estate yet the lease ought to be make to begin present as  in case of concurrent lease they be to be make to begin present as by way of  estoppel between the party though they take not effect as to the possession  till the former lease expire whereas this lease be limit not to begin till  Ridgeleys lease be end Bridgman oh er p thly sir Robert be but tenant for life  this reservation of the rend which ought to go to those in remainder be to he  his heir and assign be not good for though the lessor in truth be his heir yet  his estate he have not as heir but as a stranger by virtue of his remainder  and so can take the rend upon this reservation notwithstanding all these  objection I hold this to be a good lease pursuant to the power and first I  consider these power which be reserve upon settlement of estate by way of use  be to be take favourable and not strict otherwise the touchstone but see that  edition the point in the former passage seem to be incorrect see appendix f  where it be attempt to prove by the citation of early case from manuscript in  the British museum that concurrent lease may be grant under certain private  power as well as under the statute of Elizabeth c S but see Sugden on power  ten c he who limit and create they at the same time have a full power over the  estate and may give it in what manner be please and common as in our case the  power be reserve to he who create it cujus be dare he be to place here and  there these power of revoke upon conveyance to use of limit new use or estate  or create estate and the like have their birth and original from the statute  of h of use at first they be stranger in the law and therefore be look upon as  stranger with a more severe eye and many doubt and question be make upon they  and it be say they shall be take strict but it be well say in Bridgman oh  chudleighs case by the chief baron that use extend themselves into many branch  and he compare they to nebuchadnezzar tree for in this tree the fowl of the  heaven build their nest and the nobility and gentry of the realm settle and  establish their family and under this tree et sheep et large Italian snake et  the pecora campi a great part of the farmer and lessee of the land do lie for  shelter and safety   certain it be most true of this great branch of the tree  of use this of power they be almost in all conveyance and a great part of the  estate in the kingdom depend upon they and therefore be grow so general they  now come to be favour by the law power of revocation and power of create new  estate and lease be of the same original indeed of the two power of revocation  seem to be the less favour yet now we construe they not as condition but more  as limitation and my Lord coke express say that these revocation be favourable  interpret because many man inheritance depend upon they accord also power to  make lease whensoever the execution of they have come in question have have a  liberal and favourable construction for they be not to be consider as bare and  naked authority which be to be take strict but they savour and relish of the  estate and interest in the land and depend upon the estate in it if tenant for  life who have such power depart with his estate his power be go the estate  which be execute by the power be raise not only out of the power but partly  out of the estate of the tenant for life therefore if tenant for life who have  such a power to make lease grant a rentcharge or acknowledge a statute and  after make a lease accord to his power the lessee as some hold see grange v  tiving in these report Sugden on power p and roper law of husband and wife vol  two e shall be subject to such grant of a rend or to such statute and  therefore because these power have such a dependency upon the estate they be  not reckon as bare authority or take strict but have a more favourable and  benign interpretation he that have a power to make lease for three life may  make they for two life be that have power to revoke may do it for part at one  time part at Bridgman oh another so that they be not to be measure or compare  with bare authority so under the power in I Elizabeth c to bishop it seem that  part of twentyone year may be grant at one time and part at another see  Peryams judgement in fox and collier from ms in appendix f and on the same  principle the term may so be divide into several part in shaw v summer more a  power to trustee to let land for any term not exceed twentyone year be execute  at two different time and the second lease be adjudge to be void query if on  the special word of the power f Bridgman oh er p this be premise as to the  first objection that sir Robert Howard can not make this lease because he be  not tenant in possession but Elizabeth Ridgeley be then tenant in possession  the word of the power itself which make the law in these case be to be  consider the word be provide that it shall and may be lawful for sir Charles  Howard at all time and from time to time during his life and after his decease  to and for sir Robert Howard sir Edward Howard c name all the rest in  remainder respective be lawful seize and lawful tenant of the freehold in  possession of the say honour manor and premise by virtue of any limitation of  use by these present before limit at all time and from time to time to make  any lease or grant of any part of the premise usual lease heretofore or now in  lease whereof they or any of they respective shall be lawful seize or be  lawful tenant of the freehold in possession to any person or person for any  term or term of year or life or life so as c by the word of this power he that  be qualify to make the lease be not tie to be in possession of the land but in  possession of the freehold of the land and to show there be no mistake in it  the word be repeat twice in the proviso be lawful seize and lawful tenant of  the freehold in possession it be well say in Throckmorton and tracy case Com  fol Plowden p there be several degree in the estate of the land there be a  possession and there be a reversion or remainder there be a possession  reversion and remainder of the land and there be a possession reversion or  remainder of the freehold of the land one may have the possession the actual  possession of the land and another have the possession the actual possession  of the freehold of the Bridgman oh land for instance if I S make a lease for  forty year to a who enter a have the possession of the land I S have  possession still of the freehold and so actual that if a his lessee be oust be  shall bring a assize as be seize that be actual oust of his freehold then  suppose I S have this reversion expectant upon the lease for year to a convey  it to the use of b for life and after to the use of c for life and after to  the use of the right heir of d here be four several degree in the estate of  the land a the lessee have the actual possession of the land b the first in  remainder have the freehold the actual freehold in possession of the land  though not the actual possession of the land c have the freehold in remainder  though not the freehold in possession yet this estate in the freehold be in be  and he have it actual to grant forfeit surrender and to other purpose though  he have not actual the possession of it but the right heir of d he be live  have no estate in possession reversion or remainder of the freehold till the  contingency happen so if a lease for life be make and the lessor grant the  reversion for year the grantee after attornment Ann c S have render attornment  here unnecessary h be in actual possession of the reversion and shall have the  rend so that it be apparent there be a possession of the land and a possession  of the freehold of the land then by the word of qualification he that be  lawful seize and so be sir Robert Howard and lawful tenant of the freehold in  possession land so be sir Robert Howard be enable to make a lease it be not  that he that be lawful tenant in possession but he that be lawful tenant of  the freehold in possession be enable to make the lease these case of power as  I say before be to be take favourable and most large and beneficial for he  that have the power and therefore there be no reason to straiten the power  contrary to the express word and methinks not only the letter but the intent  and reason of this conveyance be agreeable to this construction sir Charles  from who the estate move have power to dispose of the reversion expectant upon  Ridgeleys lease as he please when he make this conveyance the estate be in  lease it do not appear that he have any intent to abridge his own power but  rather the contrary it be to be observe that the word in the power as to sir  Charles differ in the pen from the power to other it be that it shall be  lawful for sir Charles at all time during his life to make lease and as to sir  Robert and the rest it be when they shall be lawful seize and lawful ten  Bridgman oh nant of the freehold in possession to make lease it be true it  conclude alike for sir Charles and the rest that the lease must be make of  such part of the premise whereof they shall be lawful seize or be lawful  tenant of Bridgman oh er p the freehold in possession which be necessary as  well to sir Charles as the rest it be the intent that where the freehold be in  another the lease shall not be make by any of they but to my sense this  different pen in the beginning of the clause show they take it for grant that  notwithstanding sir Charles have make lease for year and so have but a  reversion yet he will be still after this settlement lawful tenant of the  freehold in possession accord to the intent of this proviso and therefore they  omit in the power unto he but as to the rest they add it that so when they be  qualify as sir Charles be that be to have the immediate freehold they may be  enable to make lease as he be and if as to sir Charles from who the estate  move the power ought to be take large and favourable the same power be limit  to the rest so qualify ought to have the same construction and it stand with  the reason of law to consider and weigh the nature of the estate at the time  of create I the power if the estate upon which the power be executable be in  possession or if it be in reversion construction be to be make aliter et  aliter where the word of the power be indefinite and general as in our case it  be in leaper and Wroths case cite in fitzwilliam case of which I shall have  occasion to speak more upon the next point it be agree if a man have a power  to make lease for twentyone year indefinite without a restraint to make they  in possession yet he can make a lease in reversion or to take effect at a day  to come for he may make it to take effect in possession but suppose that at  the time of such a general indefinite power create the estate be only a estate  in reversion expectant upon another for year or life as our case be there I  conceive he may make a lease present after the power create though the former  lease be in be for it be a reversion when it be settle and as a reversion upon  such a power he may lease it but indeed such a lease though it take effect in  point of interest de going to be yet it must be make to begin present as in  case of a concurrent lease of a bishop and this as justice Jones say in the  argument of Evans v Bridgman oh Ayscough see appendix f for a statement of the  case of Evans and Askwith from several early manuscript which explain the  print report j Askwiths case car be put by Popham to be agree in the marquis  of Northampton case it be imply in the report of Shecomb and Hawkins case cro  the word in italic and figure be supply to a blank in the manuscript king and  so in our case f this note seem to be to the book which be refer to in No of  Mr hargrave collection fol b where the reference be notam lib f a similar  reference will be observe in other place in this volume at the time of the  estate settle and power create the estate subject to the power be but a  reversion and the power shall receive a construction suitable it be general  and indefinite and not restrain to the possession of the land that he who have  the possession of the freehold though not of the law may make a lease to begin  present though it can take effect in possession during the former lease I have  do with this point I conceive sir Robert Howard at the time of this lease make  be tenant of the freehold in possession and so enable to make the lease if he  in make the lease do pursue the power in the other circumstance prescribe and  that bring I to the consideration of the next objection which be that this  lease to Robert villiers be not make to begin present but to begin by from and  after the death or other determination of the estate of Elizabeth Ridgeley and  the reddendum of the rend be post start the same termini et durante  continuation ind and therefore it be urge this lease be not pursuant to the  power which enable not sir Robert to make a lease to begin at a day to come  though it be admit he may make it during Elizabeth Ridgeleys lease yet in the  limitation of it the lease ought to be make to begin present in answer to this  objection we must again resort to the word of the proviso they give power to  sir Robert be lawful tenant of the freehold in possession to make a lease of  any part of the premise whereof he shall be lawful tenant of the freehold in  possession to any person or person for any term or term of year or life or  life so as such estate and term exceed not the number of twentyone year or  three life in possession and remainder or for any number of year determinable  Bridgman oh er p upon one two or three life at the most and so as the same be  not make by any covenant grant or Bridgman oh clause dispunishable of waste  and that so much yearly rend or other profit as be now reserve yield or pay  respective for the same or more be reserve with a clause declaratory that the  fine and other covenant assurance shall be and the conusees c shall stand and  be seize of such and so much of the premise as shall be so demise to the use  of such lessee for the term for which such demise shall be make so as such  lessee their executor and assign shall and do several and respective yearly  yield and pay to such person to who the reversion or remainder of the premise  so happen to be lease shall for the time be appertain the yearly rend or rend  or other duty and service in or by such lease reserve and at the day and time  and in such sort as in or by such lease shall be in that behalf limit the  power we see be a general indefinite power before the so or ita quod to make  any lease for any term of year or life and though in the letter of it it  extend to lease in reversion as well as in possession for it be to make any  lease for any term yet I must agree if there be no more in the case it will  not enable to make lease to begin at a day to come and as to that purpose it  be no more than if the power have be to make a lease for twentyone year or  three life though the word mention not whether such lease shall be in  possession or reversion nor restrain the power yet a lease can be make at a  day to come by such a indefinite power that be the express case of leper and  wrath which I cite before therefore in Whitlocks case the general power before  the ita quod or restraint be not indefinite to make any lease as it be in our  case but any lease tam in possession how in reversion and by virtue of that  power the lease in reversion be good which otherwise it will not have be and  the case hill James b r which in croak report go by the name of Shecomb  against Hawkins Cr Yelverton be express in the point there be a lease for year  in be as it be in our case mrs Luttrel the reversioner settle the land upon  herself for life with remainder over with a power for her at any time to make  lease for twentyone year before the old lease expire she make a lease for  twentyone year to begin after the determination of that former lease and it be  adjudge nought for it ought to have be a lease in possession and if the power  shall be construe otherwise to enable Bridgman oh the make of reversionary  lease there may be lease upon lease in infinitum and therefore such indefinite  word in power be by construction of law bind and limit where the party himself  do not bind or restrain they they be but as agreement between the party and  expound as other covenant and agreement be that be the true reason of leper  and Wroths case where the power be to make lease for twentyone year a lease  for twentyone year to begin at Michaelmas next be not by construction of law  pursuant to that power for if I be bind to you or covenant with you to make  you a lease for twentyone year indefinite the lease ought to be make present  and must not commence in going to be so if a custom be that a copyholder of  inheritance may make a lease for twentyone year he can make a lease for  twentyone year to commence at a day to come the law make a reasonable  exposition of those agreement and custom which be set forth indefinite and  that be the true reason of the resolution in leper and Wroths case and  Shecombs case before cite and not that those power be to be take strict for  they receive the same interpretation which contract and agreement between  party do which ought to have a reasonable intendment and even in that case of  leper and wrath it be agree as I have it in a good report of that case that  though the power be indefinite to make lease for twentyone year without the  word so often how often yet when one lease so make be expire the lessor by  virtue of his power may make another lease in possession though he can not  make a reversionary lease which show that these power be not take strict but  thus far I must agree in our principal case these general indefinite word to  make any lease for any term of year or life of themselves  are not sufficient  to enable this lease make to Robert villiers which be limit to commence after  the expiration of the former lease but that whereupon I ground myself be this  and by virtue whereof I take it this lease be make good videlicet the word  that follow this indefinite power the power be to make lease for any term or  term of year or life or life ita quod so as such Bridgman oh er p estate and  term exceed not the number of twentyone year or three life in possession and  remainder this ita quod or so as be not only a clause of restraint but also a  clause of explanation of the power which be indefinite Bridgman oh express  before the law indeed will have explain it if the party have not do so but his  intention appear that be mean the power shall extend to lease in remainder so  they exceed not twentyone year the law will not make contrary exposition where  the word will bear it as large as the party explain it that be the reason of  the common case if I by deed give a advowson or other thing which passes by  grant to I S indefinite the law will bind it and limit it for life but if in  the habendum I restrain it or enlarge it nay though it be by a void limitation  the law will not make any construction but such as my word carry and that be  the difference here very obvious which to another purpose be take in Whitlocks  case   between a particular power affirmative as if the power here have be to  have make lease in possession for twentyone year the ita quoth after can not  explain it to extend to lease in reversion and a general indefinite power  restrain with a ita quod as in our case the power be indefinite to make lease  for life or year the word in the generality of they exclude not but may take  in and comprehend lease in reversion and therefore the ita quod or so as  restrain and bind this indefinite power that he may lease so as it exceed not  twentyone year or three life in possession and remainder imply and so explain  the power that he may make a lease for twentyone year in remainder as well as  in possession so as it exceed not twentyone year or three life suppose the  power have be as it be here indefinite to make lease for life or year so as  upon every lease to be make in possession the old rend be reserve and upon  every lease in reversion or remainder double the old rend be reserved would  any man doubt but this have be a sufficient implication and explanation of the  power that he may make such a lease in reversion so it be here he may make a  estate in remainder not exceed three life and so he have do here this lease to  villiers be such a estate in remainder it be to begin from the determination  of the former lease it be for ninetynine year if villiers so long live and  therefore do not exceed three life and therefore be pursuant to the power if  it shall be object that this be not a remainder but a future interest in  villiers and by the ita quod the lease ought to be in possession or remainder  it receive a clear answer for first it be a remainder in the grammatical  construction it be a remainder in the vulgar acceptation he that have a future  interest have a remainder that be the land be to remain to Bridgman oh he  after the particular precedent estate determine nay nothing else can be mean  here by a lease in remainder for a legal remainder be that which commence at  the same time with the particular estate which this remainder by virtue of  this power can do he can make a lease for twentyone year to begin after  twentyone year by virtue of this power he can make a lease for life remainder  for life for that be to make a estate dispunishable of waste which be express  prohibit in this very power so that it must be construe of such a remainder as  be a future interest and so it be in Whitlocks case the power be to make lease  in possession and reversion a future interest be take by admittance to be a  lease in reversion within the power and the law expound remainder and  reversion as one and the same thing in common acceptation though not in plead  yet in fine and grant and therefore if a fine be levy of a reversion the writ  of covenant be of the land and the concord be to know again property  prediction be law Self r et to go away per see et heir nest quod property  prediction who h to hold ad boundary vitae of oneself et who post departure  Self h ad Le conusor et haeredes swine to withhold see revertor  post  departure Self h to stay behind a saying beforehand r et heir nest Com if it  shall be object for this matter not have be much press before I be Willing to  raise all the objection I can that the word of restraint of the power be so as  such estate exceed not twentyone year or three life in possession and  remainder  it shall be construe that the estate in possession and remainder  shall not exceed twentyone year or three life and here if the estate to  Elizabeth Ridgeley for ten year so much then remain of the forty year and the  estate of Bridgman oh er p Mr villiers for ninetynine year if he so long live  to commence after the end of her lease exceed in possibility twentyone year or  three life for it be in effect for one life and ten year I do agree that a  lease for one life and ten year be not within the power for the estate must be  such as exceed not three life or twentyone year it be in the disjunctive such  a estate or estate make by one who have the power can be good for the ten year  and a life may exceed three life or twentyone year and if by possibility they  may do so though in facto they do not it will not amend the matter but the  answer to the objection be easy the ita quod or so as reach not to the estate  of the land but to the estate by virtue of the power they have power to make  lease so as such lease exceed not twentyone year or three life what lease why  such as be make by virtue of the power which exclude Elizabeth Ridgeleys lease  which Bridgman oh be make before the power create and as I say before we must  look upon the estate as it be at the time when the power be create it be a  estate in reversion and of this estate thus in reversion this power be create  the estate which Elizabeth Ridgeley have come not at all within the  consideration of this power there be one thing more which I can call a  objection it be not worth the name but I must mention it the ita quod be in  the copulative in possession and remainder and this estate be a remainder  alone if it shall be think worthy a answer it be answer that the word and for  or and or for and be frequent construe in law accord to the subject matter the  word in possession and remainder must be here take distributive or otherwise  no estate can be make in possession alone for the objection be the same upon  the word be copulative possession and remainder which expression will be  absurd the power in Whitlocks case be to make lease tam in possession how in  reversion the same objection and with as much reason may have be make against  the lease there because it be in reversion only for tam how literal imply both  the truth be Whitlock principal case if well consider rule and determine the  point we have in hand there be a lease for the life of Joan Bulhead in be in  our case a lease for year Whitlock the reversioner settle it to the use of  himself for life with remainder over wherein there be a power for he to make  lease tam in possession how reversions  Provided that such lease shall not  exceed above three life or twentyone year and so as upon every such lease the  ancient rend be reserve Payable during the say lease and after he make a lease  to Christian Herne habendum for ninetynine year if she and Peter Rattenbury or  either of they so long live the term to commence after the death of Joan  Bulhead render after the beginning of the term S and so forth this future  interest be in that case adjudge good there be no difference between that  power and we but that the general power there be to make lease tam in  possession how reversion the general power in our case be to make lease  indefinite but be explain in the ita quod to extend to lease as well in  possession as remainder so as they exceed not twentyone year or three life I  take it strong to be the same as if it have be in the body of the power and  thus the other point that a lease for ninetynine year if villiers so long live  exceed not three life or twentyone year be the same case with Whitlocks lease  and one of the point resolve in that case Bridgman oh there have be one  objection main urge in this case that be if sir Robert Howard or be who have  the power may once make lease also in reversion or remainder he or those who  come to have the power after he may make lease also in reversion or remainder  and so lease may be make upon lease in infinitum so as every lease exceeed not  three life or twentyone year and there may be many lease of twentyone year  after twentyone year or many lease determinable upon three life every one of  several man life and so in effect destroy the interest of those other in  remainder to this I give this answer first that if the power extend to lease  in remainder if the power will carry it to a remainder after a remainder or to  one lease after another no man have cause to find fault with it he from who it  first move may give it upon what power or limitation be please the same  objection may be make in Whitlocks case where the power be to lease tam in  possession how in reversion but indeed where the power be indefinite and  nothing appear of any intention to Bridgman oh er p make lease in remainder or  reversion as in leper and Wroths case there it be urge as a good objection if  you extend it to a future interest that by the same reason you may by the  letter extend it to lease upon lease because he have power from time to time  to lease and that do not seem agreeable to the intent of the party but where  the intent be apparent to give a power to make lease in remainder or reversion  and from time to time it be otherwise the power have be frequent of late time  for tenant for life to have power to make lease not exceed two thousand year  nay to make estate in tail or any other particular estate and by the power  which bishop have at this day notwithstanding any statute restrain they they  may make concurrent lease lease upon lease every year for twenty year together  so there be none in be at once exceed twentyone year but second for my own  opinion I conceive it shall be enough that by virtue of this power be that  have make such a lease in reversion or remainder as long as that continue but  a reversion or remainder can make another lease in reversion or remainder upon  it if it together with all the estate in possession and remainder make before  by virtue of the power shall exceed the number of twentyyear or three life in  possession or remainder for that be the terminus ultra who they can go by  virtue of the power as I conceive and the word so as such estate and term in  the singular number exceed not twentyone year or three life in possession or  remainder must be take collective for such estate and Bridgman oh term in the  plural number for so be the word precedent any term or term and second estate  in possession and remainder can be proper understand but of two estate and  therefore in a reasonable construction the power may be construe to be confine  not to be execute beyond twentyone year or three life in the whole both in  possession and remainder and I observe both in this case and in Whitlocks case  the reversionary lease be to take effect in possession and if our lease have  be to have have another commencement as from Michaelmas next after the former  lease determine so that there have be a interval holt c j seem to have think  this point material Sugden on power from osborn ms p in Lincoln inn library so  in the same library in Leeds ms p and there Coventry v Coventry rely on by Mr  Sugden on power be say not to have be decide and see appendix f m between the  first and the second lease I doubt whether it will have be good by virtue of  either power which intend a remainder or reversion upon that which be  precedent but the power I conceive here be to make lease in possession and in  remainder so as all lease so make by virtue of the power in possession and  remainder by whosoever make exceed not twentyone year or three life and if so  such a power be but usual in the settlement of western estate so say in common  Rep t r and price n it be usual to reserve power to make lease for three life  in reversion of one in possession or two life in reversion upon two in  possession which be a great power than this in question but be the law as it  will be in such case where a reversionary lease be make after a reversionary  lease yet in our case it be but a single lease in remainder agreeable to the  word of the power I hold as to this point also that the lease be good for it  do not exceed the number of three life in remainder there be indeed two  restraint of the power the one that which we have speak of and within which as  I conceive this lease stand good the power be to lease for any term or life so  as it exceed not twentyone year or three life in possession and remainder the  other be or for any number of year determinable upon one two or three life at  the most which last clause extend only to lease in possession it be very true  this last be but a tautology and imply in the former for he that may make a  lease for any term not exceed twentyone year or three life may make a lease  for any number of year determinable upon one two or three life as it be  express resolve in Whitlocks case and therefore that here be put in ex  abundant caution but take not away the other Bridgman oh power so that for the  reason beforementioned I hold this lease to Mr villiers be good  notwithstanding it to be limit to commence upon the expiration of the former  lease the last objection to this lease be that the rend be not reserve accord  to the power for it be reserve to sir Robert his heir and assign and sir  Robert heir as heir can have it he in the remainder must have it though he be  not heir or Bridgman oh er p assign and though be that be in remainder fall  out to be heir yet he take it not as heir and perhaps after it may come to  another in remainder before the term end who will not be heir to sir Robert  the like objection be make in Whitlocks case where the rend be reserve to he  his heir and assign and to such person to who the inheritance after his death  shall appertain and adjudge to be a good reservation but the reason of that  reservation make the great doubt in this case for it be there say where  Whitlock reserve the rend to he his heir and assign this by construction of  law precede the limitation of use and have its essence out of the fine and be  all one as if it have be original limit to the lessee for the term and so be  well reserve to he his heir and assign and be well transfer to every one to  who any use be limit the reason hold well in that case for Whitlock who make  the lease make the settlement and therefore if as the law make construction  the lease be make before the remainder limit then the rend be well reserve to  he his heir and assign for he have the inheritance at the time of that  reservation but in our case sir Charles Howard make the settlement to who sir  Robert be not heir and therefore such a reservation to sir Robert his heir and  assign before the limitation of use have be nought it be true the estate by  virtue of the power when it be raise do to some purpose precede the limitation  of use but it be not raise unless the rend be right reserve for it be part of  the proviso or power that the ancient rend be reserve and the declaratory  clause be that the conusees shall stand seize to the use of such lessee so as  they pay their rend to such person to who the reversion or remainder shall  appertain and how can they pay it if it be not reserve and put the case sir  Robert have reserve the rend to he his executor and assign during the term or  to he and his wife during the term is this a good lease within the power if it  be not why shall it be good when it be reserve to his heir who have no more to  do with it than his wife or executor I confess this objection which I shall  have be glad have be press at the bar that I may have have some light from  Bridgman oh thence have strike much with I and the more because it be of very  general concernment many great estate depend upon lease make by a old son and  other in remainder for life who reserve the rend in common form to they their  heir and assign and yet be not the person who have the inheritance and create  the use but come in as sir Robert Howard in our case do as a bare tenant for  life upon a limitation of use by other who have the fee but yet I hold such a  reservation good enough and I ground it upon this difference where the word of  reservation be sufficient to carry the rend accord to the power there the  addition contrary to it shall not vitiate the reservation but the addition  shall be void and the reservation good for it appear that the intent be to  make a estate accord to the power and without which he can not make it and  then the rule hold utile per inutile non to make faulty that be our case here  be word enough in the reservation for it be reddendo post start termini et  durante continuation ind that be reddendo durante boundary prediction S d  annuatin which be the old rend at the usual time these word alone have be  clear a good reservation and indeed the best reservation as be agree in  Whitlocks case to leave it to the construction of law then the addition of  these word to he his heir and assign be void in themselves shall not vitiate  the reservation which be good without they and to prove that a idle addition  to such a power shall not vitiate that which be good there be a notable case  Trin rot b r chamber and fern case d a original note in the manuscript ms hill  car SC reference by Mr umfreville the volume seem to be number fortytwo of the  collection in the museum in which this passage of Bridgmans judgement be refer  to that report conclude that the court doubt of the validity of the execution  of the power see appendix f sir William Kniveton have a power to grant a rend  out of certain land ad it pleases he grant it Payable at another place and  town and at several day it be urge that he have not pursue his power for the  implication of law be that he shall pay it upon the land but hold it be good  for first the place of payment be but circumstantial but second for which I  urge it the body of the grant be good Bridgman oh er p and admit the  limitation of payment shall be void yet it shall be a good rend et utile per  inutile non to make faulty and in Whitlocks case it be agree if the lessor  reserve the rend to himself and to every person to who the reversion or  inheritance of the premise shall appertain during the term that be agree to be  good for the reason I say before as I conceive there be word sufficient in the  reservation for Bridgman oh otherwise it be clear nought he can reserve a rend  to a stranger and before the use create such a reservation have be void and  upon that ground I hold that if sir Robert have reserve the rend to he his  executor and assign during the term or to he and his wife during the term  which be the case that have be put or to he during the term the law will have  reject that which be void and there be enough in the reservation to satisfy  the word of the power the law will construe such a reservation to be good in  case of power create by a statute law we have several instance that a addition  to it though void in itself shall not vitiate that which be good the statute  of h VIII give power to devise two part of capite land it be adjudge in hide  and hutton case p and m dyer see Rep Rep Sugden on power c S that a devise of  all his land shall not make it void for the whole and so in sir Richard  Pexhalls case   upon the statute of h VIII of will a devise of a rend of out  of all his capite land whereas that statute enable he to devise a rend only  out of two part yet it be adjudge a good devise to charge the two part against  the opinion in butler and baker case   b Rep Griffiths and veer Ves Longdon v  Simson vesey for say the book it shall be good for so much as the statute  enable he unto and void for the residue because when plus fit how become debet  to see etian Self become quod faciendum be and because the statute enable the  devisor only to charge two part the devise of the whole be void to charge a  three part and yet it be good for the whole rend to charge the two part the  case of a power reserve to a person that have a estate execute by the statute  of use be to be compare to these and the like case and not to a bare licence  or authority by the commonlaw as I say before page but if the reservation have  not word sufficient to satisfy the power as if it be reserve the rend and do  not say durante boundary prediction or reserve a less rend or the like there  be not sufficient in the reservation to satisfy the power and therefore the  lease shall be void and shall not be make good upon the reason or supposal in  Whitlocks case because by presumption of law the lease be create by the fine  and have its essence out of it and precede the remainder for that be a beg of  the question it be not a lease accord to the power nor be create by the fine  unless the rend be reserve by and accord to the power Bridgman oh another  reason may be give why this reservation to sir Robert his heir and assign  during the term may be good be the word his heir and assign do not denote any  person certain as if he have reserve it to his wife or daughter or the like  but proper intend only the duration of the estate in the rend that be for ever  so long as the estate last and so reddendo to he his heir and assign durante  boundary prediction be no more than reddendo durante boundary prediction to  that purpose there be a notable case in the exchequer in which I be of counsel  and my brother hide between Garrett lessee of viscount Hereford and Mayrick  for the manor of Monckton in pembrokeshire Robert earl of Essex be tenant in  tail to he and the heir male of the body of Walter viscount Hereford his great  grandfather the reversion in the crown make a lease for twentyone year as  tenant in tail though the reversion be in the crown may render the ancient  rend the reservation be to he his heir and assign durante boundary prediction  and then the earl of Essex die without issue and the estate tail descend to  viscount Hereford who be not heir to the earl who make the lease but the  duchess of Somerset and sir Robert Shirley and for that cause he will have  avoid the lease but it be adjudge against he upon a especial verdict that the  rend be well reserve and will go to the viscount though not heir to the earl  who reserve it but I rely not upon this reason but principal upon the other  reason there be word in the reservation sufficient to agree with the power and  what be more shall be lie aside as void in itself and superfluous in the  clause of reservation so that upon the whole I conclude sir Robert Howard when  he make the lease be qualify to make it that the lease itself though make to  commence in going to be Bridgman oh er p be pursuant to the power that the  reservation of the rend though it be not so formal as it shall be and have  more in it than it ought to have yet be sufficient to carry the rend to those  to who the reservation or remainder shall appertain and so judgement ought to  be give for the defendant