case king against Edward Trinity term car roll if husband and wife be seize of  land to they and the heir of the body of the husband with diverse remainder  over he have a estate tail in possession and not a remainder expectant on the  joint estate and if they join in a feoff in fee with the three in remainder  and levy a fine it will be a discontinuance notwithstanding the husband and  those in remainder die without issue Jones Ro ld raym bull n p Fearne burr Bac  ab Com dig Com dig if land be give to husband and wife and the heir of the  body of the husband and the husband make a feoff and die this be a  discontinuance if a husband make a feoff of land whereof he be joint seize and  die and croak car er p the wife before entry levy a fine it fortify the  discontinuance create by the feoff and neither she nor those in remainder can  enter   a roll ab ejectment upon a special verdict the case be John bolt and  jane his wife be seize of the land in question to they and the heir of the  body of John boulti g remainder to Edward bolt and the heir of his body the  remainder to William bolt and the heir of his body remainder to George Edward  and the heir of his body the remainder to the right heir of the say John bolt  they be so seize the say John bolt and his wife and William bolt the three in  the remainder join in a feoff with warranty to Mathusaleh keen and after the  say husband and wife levy a fine to the say keen afterward the say John bolt  die without issue and the say William bolt and Edward bolt die without issue  and in the fifteen year of king James the say Mathusaleh keen die and the land  descend to Robert keen who after the death of the wife of croak car the say  John bolt enter and let to the plaintiff and the defendant by the command of  the say George Edward oust he the sole question be whether the entry of the  say George Edward be lawful and it be argue by Germin for the plaintiff and by  Maynard for the defendant the first question be whether this feoff be a  discontinuance of the estate tail and it be urge for the defendant that it be  not any discontinuance for the husband during the coverture have a joint  estate with his wife in the freehold have not any estate tail in possession  but quasi a remainder in tail expectant upon a joint estate for life and not  execute so then not be seize of the estate tail in possession it can make a  discontinuance and to prove that he cite Owen v Morgan a and Winscots case b  Richardson chief justice Berkley and myself as to this point hold that the  estate tail be in he vest and settle and that his and his wife feoff make a  discontinuance and although it be object that William bolt the three in the  remainder join in the say feoff so as it can not make a discontinuance but  that every of they respective pass their estate all the justice agree that  this join of William be not material for there be a intermediate remainder in  tail to Edward bolt which be discontinue but Jones justice doubt thereof and  conceive it be not a discontinuance because the husband be not absolute seize  of a estate tail during the life of his wife the second objection be that if  this feoff be a discontinuance at the commonlaw yet it be take away as to the  wife by the statute of Henry c and as it be take away as to the wife so be it  also as to those in remainder after the wife especial the wife survive and  that the fine after the feoff be but by way of release and be no such fine as  be intend within the statute for it ought to be such a fine which at the first  pass the estate and not a fine which inure by way of confirmation but all the  justice agree that this feoff and fine to the same person make but one  assurance and when the wife be bar and her estate destroy by the fine that she  can enter those in remainder may not enter but be in case as they be at the  commonlaw and as this case be they all resolve that a express dissent be find  it take away his entry whereupon by the assent of Jones without further  argument it be adjudge for the plaintiff Jones for the first point cite wear v  Webster c where it be hold by the court that it be not any discontinuance when  the wife survive but if the husband have survive it shall have be otherwise a    b   c more croak car er p