case Southcote against Stowell a have two son c and d covenant to stand seize  to the use of c and the heir male of his body and for default of such issue to  the use of the heir male of his own body with remainder to his own right heir  c die leave issue a son e and a daughter then a die then e die without issue  the remainder to the heir male of a vest in e as a purchaser and after his  death the estate descend to his uncle d as heir male of the body of a per form  gift S C ante S c Mod S C Freem S C keb S C Danv ante   light   vent dyer cro  Elizabeth cro car Leon   light Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod pale yellow Eq Rep fitzg ld  ray Peer wms Peer wms Com dig estate b dougl l Baldwin for the plaintiff  Thomas the covenantor may be say to take a estate for life by implication and  then it will be all one as if a express estate for life have be limit to he  with a remainder to his heir male which will be a feetail execute in himself  and if so then William have a good title and be cite Lord paget case a and a  the rector of Chedingtons case b   b Fenwyke v Mittford c more and cro  Elizabeth c Hodgekinson v wood d cro car d and lane v panel e roll Rep e but  if this will not hold then William may take a estate by way of future spring  use for this be quote the case of mill v parson f roll Abr f if neither of  these way will serve yet the remainder to the heir male of Thomas may vest in  Edward for sir Popham die in the covenantors life modern er p time and William  may take by descent as special heir performam gift though he be not heir of  the body of Edward in who the remainder first vest Stroud contra the  limitation of a remainder in tail to the heir male of the covenantor be have  in its original creation for no man can make himself or his own heir purchaser  without depart with the whole feesimple but all the case g Edward pl Edward pl  bro Abr pl hell pl Henry pl Henry pl bro Abr b pl Heil pl ass dyer b b   light  Inst bro Abr pl g be of estate pass by conveyance at commonlaw and not by way  or use but use be direct modern by the rule of the commonlaw and as to the  vest of they differ not from estate convey in possession chudleighs case h   h  No favourable construction ought to be make for use against a rule of law the  statute of Henry c seem intend to extirpate all private use and be in  restitution of the commonlaw he cite the earl of Bedford case I   Poph more I  and Fenwyke v Mitiford king   light b king if Thomas take any estate by this  settlement be take a feesimple for no estate be limit to he if he take any the  law vest it in he now the act of law will not settle in he a estatetail which  be a fetter estate but a feesimple if anything and the rather because the  reason of it must be upon a supposition that the old use continue still in he  be never well limit out of he then be argue that admit the limitation to be  good yet since it vest in Edward as a purchaser it be spend by his die without  issue but north chief justice Wyndham and Atkins justice be of opinion that if  a estate limit to a man and the heir of the body of his father vest in he be  it either by descent or purchase and be die without issue it shall go to his  brother c so in this case if the remainder to the heir male of Thomas ever  vest in Edward it come to William as heir male of the body of Thomas and he be  a special heir to take by descent second they agree that at the commonlaw a  man can not make his right heir a purchaser without part with the whole fee  but that by way of use he may Creswolds case in dyer be of a estate execute  they agree the limitation of the remainder in this case to be good and that it  vest in Edward as a purchaser north chief justice it can take effect as a  spring use because where the limitation be of a remainder the law will never  construe it so as to support it any other way this he say he have know resolve  in one cutler case in the king bench Scroggs justice agree to the judgement  but say he go contrary to the book in so do which go upon nice and subtle  difference little less than metaphysical