case cook versus cook November in Richard Staniford devise certain message c  to Edward Staniford in fee who die in and the premise descend to his daughter  whether who marry r cook the plaintiff grandfather who have issue three son  Robert plaintiff father and the defendant Bernard and Edward r cook the  grandfather die Robert the father die in leave jane his widow and  administratrix and plaintiff his heir at law whether the grandmother die in  and thereupon the plaintiff enter as heir at law on all the premise except one  acre convey to Edward by plaintiff grandmother and father the defendant get  the title deed and set up several old term create by way of settlement the  plaintiff now bring his bill as heir at law to be quiet in possession and to  have a assignment of the term if any to attend the defendant by their answer  insist that the say Richard be not seize in fee but that in James the premise  be demise to okeley for year and the day after that demise the say premise be  demise to okeley for year to commence from the expiration or other  determination of the say year these indenture be make between sir r farmer sir  r brook and Francis Plowden of the one part and okeley of the other in the  last indenture Plowden covenant with okeley the lessee that farmer and brook  shall convey the freehold to such person or person as okeley shall appoint by  another indenture car make between the administrator of okeley and Richard  Staniford the elder of the one part and Henry Sutton and Richard Staniford the  young therein describe as heir apparent of Richard Staniford the elder and  Alice his wife of the other part recite the say two former indenture and that  the term be purchase with the proper money of Richard Staniford the elder the  premise be thereby assign to Sutton upon trust which have be then long since  determine and then in trust for Richard Staniford the young for the remainder  of say term Edward Staniford afterward assign those term in trust for himself  and wife in tail the defendant Barnard cook obtain administration to Robert  cook the grandfather and to whether the grandmother and thereupon claim the  term as part of the personal estate subject to distribution his lordship  decree that plaintiff shall enjoy and be quiet in the possession of say  premise and that the trustee in who the legal estate of the term of year be  vest shall assign the residue thereof to plaintiff or such person as he shall  appoint Reg lib a fol here we may observe that by the second indenture James  farmer and brook become trustee as to the freehold and inheritance of the  premise for okeley while the legal estate for the term be vest in he and when  okeley declare the purchasemoney belong to Richard Staniford then farmer and  brook become trustee for he the plaintiff Robert cook as heir at law to  whether who marry Robert the grandfather be therefore entitle to the equitable  estate both of the inheritance and the term of year but still the term be  direct to attend the inheritance court of law as well as court of equity will  make a strong presumption in favour of a possession of year where the  enjoyment of a estate have be so long and uninterrupted as this have be  videlicet from the year court of law as well as court of equity will make a  strong presumption in favour of such a possession though there may be some  circumstance to show that it be not the intention that the inheritance shall  be convey where a person be owner of a term and there be a covenant for the  trustee to convey the inheritance he be to be consider as the beneficiary and  trust of the inheritance because he may have call upon the trustee in this  court to have assign the legal estate whether the legal estate be in the  beneficiary and trust or in the trustee it will make no difference for where  there be a covenant that it shall be convey this court will consider it as  actual convey and will look upon it as a term only attendant upon the  inheritance and so connect together in the beneficiary and trust that it can  never be sever in favour of a heir or executor at least there are some case  where it have be do in behalf of creditor see Willoughby v Willoughby durn and  east Goodright v sale will villiers v villiers post it be decree that the  plaintiff do hold and enjoy the premise and be quiet in the possession and  that the defendant do not disturb he in such possession or any person claim by  from or under he atkins er p