case thomson against leech surrender by a lunatic be absolute void S c Carth S  c comb S c comy S c Eq Abr S c holt S c lev S c Mod S c ld ray S c salk S c  salk S c show S c show p c S c vent ejectment on a special verdict the case be  S leech tenant for life with contingent remainder in tail remainder over to  sir Simon leech in tail remainder in fee to n leech the tenant for life before  the contingency happen surrender to sir Simon leech but at the time of the  surrender be non compos chin the question be whether this surrender by a non  compos be void and if not void but only voidable whether there be such a right  still remain in the non compos as be sufficient to support the contingent  remainder and per curian the surrender be void for whatsoever be do by a  infant or non compos chin which take effect only by deed be void a but it be  otherwise in case of a feoff by reason of the notoriety and solemnity thereof  and per holt chief justice if non compos make a feoff by letter of attorney he  be as much disable to avoid that feoff himself as if he have make livery in  person and yet it be a void feoff to all other person the true reason why a  feoff by a infant or non compos be but voidable be because of the notoriety  and solemnity of the feoff and livery that ancient way of convey which be in  view of the whole country who see the transmutation of possession and  therefore it be prefer before all secret way and therefore if tenant in tail  make a modern report feoff it divest the remainder and turn all to a right but  if tenant in tail make a bargain and sale or a lease and release in fee he  make no divest thereby a see Hudson v Jones Bac Abr Abbott v parson burr  sanderson v mark h Bl Rep modern report er p but only passes a estate for his  life the case of Loyd v Gregory a be express that the surrender of a infant be  void if a infant grant a rentcharge and the grantee distrain the infant may  have trespass which show the grant to be void and where it be say in the book  Whelpdales case b that the grant of a infant be not void but only voidable the  meaning thereof be that he can plead non be factum and give infancy in  evidence because it have all the formality of a deed as write seal and  delivery but he shall show the special matter whereby it may appear that as to  the operation of the deed or efficacy of it it be void a infant and non compos  be parallel in all case but only as to the non composs disable himself but the  heir may enter on the alienee of the idiot without to know facias but not  during the life of a idiot or non compos there have be another question start  worthy of consideration videlicet suppose the non compos have make a feoff in  fee yet whether be not a right remain in he sufficient to support a contingent  remainder though a right of action will not for the reason why he can avoid  his feoff be not for want of right but because of his personal disability and  if tenant for life make a feoff during his lunacy the king upon office find  that he be a lunatic may avoid the feoff by to know facias and so revest the  inheritance and if so why may he not also prefer a contingent remainder a  right of entry will though a right of action will not support a contingent  remainder as if there be tenant for life with a contingent remainder over and  tenant for life be seize the whole estate be divest but the right of entry in  the tenant for life shall support the contingent remainder but if tenant for  life be seize and a contingent remainder expectant upon his estate do not vest  before a descent be cast then it be go because it be turn into a right of  action though now it may be preserve long by the statute of Henry c whereby  except a seize be five year in possession a descent will not take away his  entry the case of bigot v smith c be a remarkable case which be baron and feme  jointtenants for life remainder to the heir of the survivor of they the  husband alone make feoff in fee and die the wife survive and the question be  modern report whether this contingent remainder can arise out of the wife  estate and hold that it shall not because that during the coverture she have  no right of entry or action but the husband have the power of the whole estate  and though her estate and the contingency happen and start up together eastern  instanter yet this be not sufficient because the particular estate that shall  support the contingency ought to be precedent but there be no necessity to  hesitate in this point because on the first point it be plain that judgement  ought to be for the plaintiff