carter tinker versus LIDCOT ejectment Francis Lidcot July car demise to the  plaintiff the rectory of e habend from the Feast of saint John baptist last  pass for the term of three year who hold till he be eject the jury find a  special verdict dr S prebendary of Paul be seize in fee of these land and  rectory in question in the right of his prebend and he by indenture of lease  do demise to Thomas Lidcot the say rectory habend to he and his assign for  three life Thomas the father life and his two son life Thomas and Francis  which Francis be the lessor of the plaintiff this be execute by livery and  seize to Thomas and he enter accord he be so seize September car by indenture  of the same date convey the premise to Flexmore Greavs and Allestre to have  and to hold to these use to the use of Thomas Lidcot the father for his  natural life after his decease to the use of his wife Rebeccah and her assign  for her life if the son so long live on condition that Rebeccah out of the  profit of the tenement shall breed and maintain young child and that she shall  pay out of the same a annuity of per annum to Thomas Lidcot the son till be  come to the age of year and per annum to Francis till he come to his age of  and that after the decease of Rebeccah they shall stand seize to the use of  Thomas and Francis and the heir of Thomas thus the heir come in they find  possession be deliver upon this deed they further find that Thomas the father  die seize that Rebeccah enter and she die march after her decease the three  assignee enter into the say tenement five year after Greavsand allestry die  and Flexmore survive after Thomas the son die may Flexmore demise the premise  to Francis the son and Peter the brother of old Thomas habend the one moiety  to Francis the other moiety oh Peter for year if Francis so long live by  virtue of which demise Francis enter and make a lease to the plaintiff till he  be eject by John Lidcot son of Thomas the heir of old Thomas earl sergeant pro  to express grief two query carter er p when Thomas Lidcot the father who have  a estate for his own life and his son two life make a estate to the use of  himself for his life and after to the use of his wife for her life if his two  son live so long whether he have leave power in himself to limit a estate to  the use of his son Thomas and Francis and the heir of Thomas Thomas have a  estate for three life be grant away this estate to another to the use of  himself and his wife then limit a further use to Thomas and Francis and his  heir now he have no power to limit further than the life of his two son Thomas  and Francis carter admit this limitation to the use of Thomas the son and his  heir be void then who shall have the remainder of the estate to supply the use  limit out of it here come a contingent after this conveyance make after the  death of Rebeccah there be a large part of the estate then what will supply  the use what shall become of that whether it shall result to Thomas the first  lessee or the survive grantee shall have it or John the son that make the  ejectment the special occupant shall have it I conceive Flexmore shall have it  the remainder of the estate happen in future contingency my reason be because  he can not limit a use out of a possibility use must be raise out of something  in be and nothing be leave to limit any use for Thomas his son and heir his  wife be a stranger and be limit a estate to his wife if the son shall so long  live and it be a contingency if the son die before the wife the estate of the  wife will be determine but if the wife die before the son then a remainder  must be to the use wife of his for life if he have say no further this have be  a forfeiture but say if my son shall so long live there be a possibility all  be go out of he to a possibility so that a fine can not make it good the  question be whether a possibility be enough to raise a use I say no a use must  rise out of land or some other thing in be a use rise not out of a use or out  of a way or common which be new create cro throw Beaudly and brook a  possibility be not a thing in be a use can be large than a estate out of which  it be limit cro Elizabeth bedinfield case tenant in tail covenant to stand  seize to the use of himself for life after to the use of his old son and his  heir resolve the son shall not have it for when tenant in tail covenant to  stand seize to the use of himself for life this be as much as he can lawful do  and the limitation over be void where a estate be give to one man the use to  another the use can be large than the estate out of which it be limit cro car  foe Meredith and Jones when the estate be limit to one or two to the use of  other and their heir the first estate be not enlarge by this implication and  the use can pass a great estate all the estate be dispose of before there be  any limitation of use to Thomas and his heir and therefore as to he be a void  limitation the second point how shall the plaintiff lessor take advantage how  come Flexmore to it I must prove both else the law will be against we who then  shall have the estate the remainder that be limit out of the use whether  Thomas or Flexmore or John Flexmore the survive grantee shall have it I will  take it off that neither Thomas nor John shall have it it can revert back to  Thomas the grandfather the original lease must be observe he must claim the  remainder of the estate and he must claim by that if any thing that be make to  he his executor and administrator and not to his heir he be dead before  Rebeccah Thomas can not have it for the contingent carter happen not till  after his death as for his executor and administrator they can not claim it  for it be a freehold object Thomas his heir shall have it resp No he can claim  it as heir to Thomas not as a special occupant for the thing of its own nature  be not descendible its too great to go to his executor and too little to go to  his heir therefore neither old Thomas nor Thomas nor John can have it as a  special occupant to his father Thomas for if he claim it any way it must be  that way true the limitation be to the father and his heir but that be void  this John can claim as occupant now it must fall upon Flexmore the survive  grantee this case be not like the case in   light foe a man seize of land in  fee make feoff in fee without valuable consideration to diverse use so much  use as he dispose not be in he as his ancient use for carter er p there be a  remainder of a estate in the feoff leave to supply but here be nothing leave  of a estate whereby a result may be to feoff or donor because the estate here  grant be to make up a employ use a man seize in fee make a gift in tail or  lease for life without consideration or express the use yet there be a imply  consideration and he shall have only a reversion if I devise land to one in  fee or for life there be a imply consideration in the devise if I make a lease  for life to another man upon a express use this be good enough yet I think in  some case a man shall not limit a estate for life to a use there be a imply  use always to the lessor for life so it be in grant over a lease for life as  in our case the grantee be subject to fealty and action for waste c but I  shall conclude upon this point that here be a good estate raise to Flexmore  and Flexmore shall have the remainder of the estate and so Flexmore have make  a good lease to Francis who enter and John son to Thomas put he out without  any right at all I pray judgement for the plaintiff broom sergeant pro to ward  off to the first question it be clear when the lease be make to Thomas for  these life that he have a estate in he to enjoy assign or grant   light foe b  cro Elizabeth foe Uttydales case he have a estate to grant over to another  though he himself can have a great estate of freehold than his own life and he  may grant it to a special occupant to prevent a general occupancy if there be  a good estate for three life execute by the prebend lease then against the  rise of these use to the son this objection be make object he say a use can be  raise out of a possibility resp this be not altogether a possibility but a  contingent use cro James castle and Dodds case now when be grant it all be out  of the grantor nothing be leave in he but all be transfer to the use of Thomas  and his heir and Thomas come in as a special occupant carter object young  Thomas be never seize and therefore it can never come to John the defendant  his son resp John come in in privity as a special occupant by the limitation  to Thomas and his heir dyer pl the course be to limit the word heir to the  grantee to prevent the danger of occupancy so   light seize make a lease to a  man and his heir during the life of I S lessee die live I S this shall not  take away the entry of the disseizee because he that die seize have but a  freehold only and heir in that case be add to prevent the occupant Plowd Com  walsingham case to the second point Flaxmore be a general occupant and though  he do enter yet he be prevent by the entry of a special occupant before so he  pray judgement for the defendant Bridgman chief justice put this case tenant  pur auter vie of a rend remainder over to I S and his heir tenant die live  cesti and vie what be become of the rend there be no occupancy of a rend earl  Popham think be in remainder shall have it present Bridgman in Chudlies case  we know all the estate be out of the feoff and there be scintilla law when a  use arise something must be to feed it now in our case when Thomas have a  estate for three life and he convey the land after to the use of himself for  life and to his wife for life during the life of his son then to Thomas and  his heir why shall not all go out of he as in Chudlies case earl a possibility  be not a thing in be and a use can arise out of it that be the pinch of the  case Adjournatur