christopher Dighton gentle plaintiff versus bernard GREENVIL esquire defendant  refer to John v pink Ch show c Mod the plaintiff bring a writ of error upon a  judgement in air action of trespass and ejectment in the king bench give for  the defendant where the plaintiff declare upon the demise of Theophilus earl  of Huntingdon of a moiety of the manor of mark and of diverse message land and  tenement lie in mark bently in Baln in the county of York and also of the  demise of Robert earl of Scarsdale of the other moiety of the say manor and of  the demise of Elizabeth Lewis of the entire manor of mark and that by virtue  of these several demise he enter and be possess until eject by the defendant  upon not guilty plead the jury find the defendant not guilty of the trespass  and ejectment upon the demise of Elizabeth Lewis and as to the demise of the  several moieties by the say earl they find a special verdict to this effect  videlicet Ventris that Thomas Lewis the that of April James before the mayor  of Lincoln acknowledge a statute merchant to William knight for l to be pay at  the Feast of saint Philip and Jacob then next follow and that the say Morley  be not pay at the day and that William knight the that of November make his  last will and one Isaac knight his executor and die that Isaac prove the say  will and in Trinity term car sue a cap si layman out of the common plea  against the say Thomas Lewis direct to the sheriff of Lincoln returnable in  tres Trin who return quod layman to be send non to be invention in balliua  svan upon which issue a writ bear testae the that of July car Vic Eborum to  extend the good and chattel and all the land and tenement of the say Thomas  Lewis tempore recognitionis debt is owed pillage returnable mensae Michael  upon which the say sheriff return a inquisition take the that of October then  next follow whereby Thomas Lewis be find seize of diverse land and tenement  parcel of the land in the declaration mention to be demisei by the say earl  which he the same day cause to be deliver to the say Isaac to hold by extent  as his freehold until he shall be satisfy of his say debt with his damage and  cost they further find that the say Thomas Lewis and one John levet and Thomas  levet the that of November car acknowledge a recognizance in nature of a  statute staple before the Lord chief justice Branston to Richard Gerard for l  Payable at Christmas their next follow which money be not pay at the day and  that upon a certificate of the say recognizance in the chancery by John erard  survive executor of Richard Gerard the d of June car there issue a cap si  layman and a extent against the say Thomas Lewis to the sheriff of the county  of York returnable in Crast animar neighbor at which day the sheriff return a  inquisition by he take whereby it appear that the say William Lewis tempore  recogn debt is owed pd be seize in fee of the manor of mark and of diverse  message land and tenement be the same land in the declaration mention to be  Ventris er p demise by the say earl and the that of Novem car I a liberate be  sue out returnable in quinden Hillar to the say sheriff who return that the  that of November car he have cause to be deliver the say manor message land  and tenement to the say John Gerard to hold as his freehold until he shall be  satisfy his say debt with his damage and cost they further find that Thomas  Lewis and Thomas levet the that of may car acknowledge a recognizance in  nature of a statutestaple before the Lord chief justice Branston to sir  gervase Elways and William Burroughs for l Payable at Ventris the Feast of  saint John the baptist next follow which money be not pay at the day and that  upon a certificate of the say recognizance in chancery by the say sir ervase  Elways and William Burroughs the that of December car there issue out a cap si  layman and a extent against the say Thomas Lewis direct to the sheriff of the  county of York returnable in quinden hill neighbor at which day the sheriff  return a inquisition by he take whereby it appear that the say William Lewis  tempore recogn debt is owed pillage be seize in fee of a capital message in  mark and of diverse message land and tenement be the same land mention in the  declaration to be demise by the say earl and that the that of fever car I a  liberate be sue out returnable in quinden pasch to the say sheriff who return  that he have cause to be deliver the say land and tenement to the say sir  gervase Elways and William Burroughs to hold as their freehold until they  shall be satisfy the say debt with their damage and cost they find that Thomas  Lewis be seize of all the land mention in the say several inquisition at the  respective time of his acknowledgement of the say statute and recognizance  they find that the that of July Isaac knight and John Gerard by their  respective deed grant their say several extend interest to one Edward Lewis by  virtue whereof the say Edward Lewis become possess of the manor and tenement  pillage edvardo such possessionat existent praedictoque thonia Lewis de manor  oninib proemisis seized existen in actual reali possession ind the say Thomas  Lewis by his indenture of lease and release date the that and that of may for  l convey the say manor and premise to John Lewis and his heir in which there  be a covenant to levy a fine before the end of trinityterm then next ensue and  that accord in trinityterm the say Thomas Lewis do levy a fine come Ceo with  proclamation of the say manor and premise to the say John Lewis to the use in  the say indenture mention by virtue whereof the say John Lewis be seize in fee  of the say manor and premise and that John Lewis be thereof so seize the saint  day of July make his last will and testament in write and thereby devise the  say manor and tenement to Edward Lewis and the heir male of his body and for  want of such issue to his daughter Elizabeth and mary and the heir of their  body lawful issue and for want of such issue to his own right heir and that  John Lewis the saint of August die so seize and that the say manor and premise  at the time of make of the say will be in the possession of the say Edward  Lewis and that by virtue Ventris thereof the say Edward Lewis become seize of  the say manor and premise prout law postulate and that in Michaelmas term car  the say Edward Lewis be so seize levy a fine come Ceo with proclamation of the  say manor and premise to Francis and his heir to the use of Edward Lewis and  his heir they find that John Lewis have issue two daughter Elizabeth and mary  who be the heir both of John and Edward Lewis and that Edward Lewis Sep car  die without issue and that the say Elizabeth and mary as heir to both John and  Edward Lewis thereupon enter into the say manor and premise and be seize prout  law postulate and that Elizabeth afterward marry Theophilus earl of Huntingdon  and that mary marry Robert earl of Scarsdale by virtue whereof the say earl in  right of their say wife enter into the say manor and premise and be seize  prout law postulate they find that the executor of Edward Lewis assign to  Elizabeth Lewis widow all their interest in the say statute and extent by  virtue whereof the say Ventris er p Elizabeth enter and be possess but in  trust for the say two earl and demise the same unto the say earl at will they  find that the that of November sir gervase Elways die and that William  Burroughs survive and that be afterward on the d of may car die and that on  the that of July administration as to the say recognizance and sum of l and  process thereupon be commit to whether Greenvil wife of the say Bernard and  that the say earl be so seize on the saint of July car the say Bernard  Greenvil and whether his wife administer of all the good and chattel of  Richard Gerard unadministered by John Gerard and Francis Gerard which  administrator of the good and chattel of Richard Gerard cum testament  fastening do confess themselves to be full satisfy the say l in the say  recognizance acknowledge by Thomas Lewis unto the say Richard Gerard and of  their damage and cost thereby sustain and pray that the say recognizance may  be vacate which be accord do and afterward on the that of September car the  say Bernard in right of the say whether enter into the say manor and premise  and afterward videlicet on the saint of June car the say earl enter upon the  say Bernard and make the lease in the declaration to the plaintiff by virtue  whereof the plaintiff be possess until eject by the defendant and conclude  general that if Bernard be guilty they assess damage to d and cost to S and if  not guilty they find so Ventris there have be diverse point make in the case  by the counsel that have argue some have make more than other but the method I  shall take will be to observe the several transaction that have be in the case  as they be find in this special verdict and to consider of what effect and  consequence they will be in law for the bar of the extent upon in the statute  acknowledge to Elways and borough either in respect of any present right that  he have at the time of the fine levy or any future right that shall first come  to he upon the satisfaction acknowledge upon gerard statute so as to give he  the benefit of the second save in the statute of the that of Henry the that of  fine it be find that there be the statute successive acknowledge and that the  last statute be extend first which I think make neither one way nor other and  that on the that of July in the year the two extent which be upon knight  statute and gerard statute which be the saint and d in time acknowledge be  assign to Edward Lewis and two year after in the year Thomas Lewis who be find  to be in the actual and real possession of the land in question and Edward  Lewis in possession prout law postulate bargain and sell the premise to sir  John Lewis in fee and levy a fine in Trinity term to he with proclamation and  five year pass without any claim by Edward Lewis before I go any further I  will see what become of the extent upon the several statute to knight and  Gerard after this assignment fine and nonclaim I observe that the counsel for  the defendant have argue that the extent upon Gerard and Elwayss statute be  reversion or reversional interest and thereupon have conclude that knight  extent be drown in gerard extent after they come both to be assign to Edward  Lewis which point they make use of first to remove knight statute out of the  way for if that be not make a end of some way or other there have be no  satisfaction acknowledge upon that it shall stand in way of the defendant  title and this be also of use to they in another matter for if the two extent  upon the statute of a late date be reversional interest the consequence will  be that when sir John Lewis devise the inheritance to Edward Lewis gerard  extent will not thereupon be drown in the fee because of the reversional  interest which be then in Burroughs and Elways that come between as be resolve  in the case of chamberlain and ewer in Bulstr for if gerard statute be drown  by that devise it will make a end of it too soon for the defendant purpose for  that the estate and interest by extent they will suppose to continue at least  as to Ventris Burroughs and Elwats till such time as satisfaction shall be  acknowledge which be not do till twelve year after for my part I do not think  it necessary to the resolution of the main point of this case to insist upon  the drown or to determine whether the extent upon Ventris er p gerard statute  and Burroughss statute be reversion or in the nature of reversional interest  yet because it have not be a point much speak to on both side I will say  something to it by and by and I do incline to think that they be in the nature  of reversion and that knight extent after the assignment to Edward Lewis  become drown in gerard extent but whether there be any drown or no there be  enough in the case beside to take knight extent out of the way or to determine  it for I be not satisfy that knight statute as the verdict be find be ever  extend at all for it be find to have be acknowledge before the mayor of  Lincoln and that the money be not pay at the day and that knight the conusee  die and that Isaac knight his executor take a capias thereupon out of the  common plea now it be a statutemerchant it ought first to have be certify into  the chancery and from thence a capias shall be issue out returnable in the  court of common plea and so the statute of Acton burnel Edward enact and so be  Fitzherbert n b whereas here the capias go out of the common plea and for  ought appear be the first step towards the execution of this statute for it do  not appear that it be ever certify or that the court have any record before  they to award this capias upon and so the execution be quite in another manner  than the statute provide and be a new case introduce by the statute and  therefore it seem to be void and if so then the statute of knight can not be  assign so as to pass the interest of it to Edward Lewis and the fine will have  no effect upon it and indeed it put it clean out of the case before we as if  it have never be acknowledge and the interest of that statute must be still in  the executor of knight but then admit it to have be extend and consequent well  assign together with gerard statute to Edward Lewis if so I take it to be  drown in gerard extent as to that the case be no more than this that after the  statute be extend there come another extent upon a puisne statute for it be  find that gerard statute be extend after knight statute whether the estate by  extent upon the puisne statute be in the nature of a reversional interest for  if so then when the interest of the first extent and the late come into one  person the first must be drown for a estate for year or other chatter interest  will Ventris merge in a chattel in reversion that be immediate expectant and  that be Hugh and Robothams case in the cro pl if a lease for year be make and  then the reversion be grant for year with attornment the lessee may surrender  to the grantee and the term will drown in the reversion for year to which it  be object that a extent be rather in the nature of a charge upon the land than  a interest or estate in the land it self in the case of Haydon and vavasor  versus smith in more a extent be thus describe that it be onus real inhearens  lap unconstrained tenementi tout temps executory as the word of that book be  if the tenant by a extent purchase the inheritance of part of the land extend  the whole fall so a release of the debt will immediate determine the extent  and it have be compare to one that enter into land by virtue of a power to  hold until arrear of rend be satisfy it be true air extent be a execution give  by the statutelaw for the satisfaction of a debt and therefore the release of  the debt must determine the estate by extent because the foundation of it be  remove and so if the inheritance of part of the land extend come to the  conusee it destroy the whole extent whereas if a lessee for year purchase the  reversion of part the lease hold for the rest but in case of a extent if it  shall be so the conusee will hold the residue of the land long because the  profit that shall go in satisfaction of the debt must be less and this will be  to the wrong of he in the reversion but in other respect a extent make a  estate in the land and have all the property and incident of and to a estate  and do in no sort resemble such a interest as be only a charge upon the land a  interest by extent be a new species of a estate introduce by statutelaw our  book say that it be a estate create in imitation of a freehold and quasi a  freehold but do book can be produce that say that it be quasi a estate the  statute of Edward cap enact that be to who the debt be due shall have a estate  of freehold in the land and the statute of Edward de mercatoribus say that he  shall have seize of all the land and tenement when a statute be extend it turn  the Ventris er p estate of the conusor into a reversion and so be the express  word in   Inst b and so the objection that he do not hold by fealty be answer  and there be no tenor that be to no purpose but he that enter by virtue of a  power to hold till satisfy a arrear of rend leaves the whole estate in the  owner of the land and not a reversion only Ventris if a lease for year be make  reserve rend and then the lessor acknowledge a statute which be extend the  conusee after the extent shall have a action of debt for the rend and distrain  and avow for the rend as in bro title stat merch and Noy foe but he that enter  by a power to hold for a arrear of rend shall not he in reversion may release  to the tenant by extent which will drown the interest and merge his estate  accord as it be limit in the release   Inst b tenant by statute may forfeit by  make a feoff more he be to attorn to the grant of the reversion roll and be  liable to a quid law proclaim h b tenant by extent may surrender to he in  reversion   corbet case therefore these case be to show that ail extend  interest make ail estate in the land as much as any demise or lease and I take  it the consequence of that be that when a estate by extent be evict by a  extent upon a prior statute as Elways and Burroughss extent be by the extent  of knight statute or where the prior statute be first extend and then a  statute of late date be extend as gerard statute be find to be extend after  the extent upon knight statute in both these case the extent upon the puisne  statute will be in the nature of a reversional interest a reversion be every  where thus describe videlicet a estate to take effect in possession after  another estate determine it be not in nature of a future interest as a term  for year limit to commence after the end of a former term for such a one shall  not have the rend upon a former lease as I have show before but be that extend  upon a lessee for year shall for the liberate give a present interest to hold  ut book property but indeed can take effect in possession by reason of a prior  extent or by prior title and this be the very case of a reversion which be a  actual present interest though it be to take effect in possession after  another estate now I conceive it will plain follow from this that knight  statute be drown in gerard statute upon the assignment of both to Edward Lewis  it be true in fullwood case in the   whereas in the case before we two estate  by extent be assign to one person there be do notice take of the drown which  make nothing against it for there be no occasion there to stir or insist upon  that point Ventris but the next thing to be consider be suppose knight statute  to have be well extend and not to be drown in gerard statute after the  assignment of both to Edward Lewis how the fine levy by Thomas Lewis and  nonclaim will work to the bar of these extend interest that be thus in Edward  Lewis at the time of the fine levy that a right to a estate by extent will be  bar by a fine and nonclaim as well as the interest or right to a term of year  or any other such like estate can be question and I think have be agree of all  hand Siffins case in   and the authority of a great many other book make that  to be without controversy but the counsel for the defendant have insist upon  two thing in this case by which they have endeavour to show that neither of  these extent shall be bar by this fine which I shall mention and give some  answer to first it have be say that it be reasonable to intend that the  assignment of knight and Gerrard extent to Edward Lewis be in trust and to  wait upon the inheritance and if so the fine by Thomas Lewis shall only work  upon the inheritance for it will be a great inconvenience when estate for year  or by extent be take in and assign to protect purchaser from late encumbrance  if the fine of he that have the inheritance and also the trust of those estate  assign shall bar his own trustee and though in Iseham and Horriss case in cro  there seem to be a opinion that a trustee in such a case be bar where the case  be that a man have purchase a lease for year in trust for himself and  afterward he buy the inheritance and afterward sell it and levy a fine to the  purchaser it be say there that five year nonclaim shall bar the assignee of  the term for say Ventris er p the book the trust pass inclusive in the fine so  that it must be understand in that case that the conusee who be as purchaser  do not know of this term nor any agreement to have it assign in trust for he  and then if the fine have not bar be have be cheat I but I conceive the law  will have be otherwise if by agreement this term have be to be assign in trust  for the conusee and this I think go upon a very good reason for he that have  the inheritance in trust for who such a term or estate by extent be assign  must be take as tenant at will to his trustee and then that his possession be  the possession of the trustee the consequence of which be that the fine levy  by he that have the inheritance will work only upon that when it appear that  it be so intend and that the term shall be keep on foot whereas in Iseham and  Morriss case for ought appear Ventris there be no such intention nor do it  appear that the conusee know of the term so that I do agree that if it be find  that these assignment to Edward Lewis of the statute be in trust and to wait  upon the inheritance which be after sell and convey by the fine of Thomas  Lewis to sir John Lewis that then the fine and nonclaim will not work to the  bar of either of those statute but the special verdict find nothing of any  trust and we can intend it without find neither be there any thing find to  induce or ground any supposition of a trust for it be not find that either of  the assignment be make to Edward Lewis for money or other consideration move  from Thomas Lewis or sir John Lewis nor to have be make by any direction or a  request of they and there be two year distance between the assignment and the  fine levy and sale of the premise to sir John Lewis so that they can be take  to have be make with any relation to his purchase and then it will be plain  that knight extent suppose it not to be drown in Gerrard extent must be bar  after five year without claim upon the fine in of Thomas Lewis for as this  verdict be find it must be take that the estate by extent be divest and put to  a right for the liberate put the conusee in actual possession if a extent be  make upon a lessee for year the lessee after a liberate to the conusee may  plead a eviction and not before the liberate hob the conusee after the  liberate be capable of release to enlarge his estate   Inst b now the verdict  find that at the time of the fine levy in Thomas Lewis the conusor of that  fine be in actual and real possession and that Edward Lewis be in possession  prout law demand this actual and real possession in Thomas Lewis can not be  unless he have regain the possession after the liberate upon the extent of  knight statute it have be object that he shall be take to have enter by the  consent of Edward Lewis there be no such thing find and so can be intend and  then that estate by extent must be divest and so the case be strong than that  of a lessee for year before entry who gain no actual possession till entry and  therefore his interest can be proper say to be divest and yet a fine will bar  he if he enter not within five year a strong a tenant by statute shall be bar  who have have the actual possession by a liberate and then afterward the  conusor gain the actual and real possession as the verdict express find and  levy a fine upon the find in this verdict which I take to be as strong a case  as can be put as to Edward Lewis be bar by the fine as to knight statute  Ventris why then after that he become bar he shall have five year more to  claim in respect of Gerrard statute this be still upon a supposal that knight  statute be well extend and that it do not drown in Gerrard statute for if the  extent upon knight statute be void upon the reason mention before or if drown  then must Edward Lewis claim within the first five year after the fine to save  Gerrard extent for I shall grant that he may have five year upon Gerrard  statute after the five year nonclaim upon knight extent and that by the second  save of the statute of h for it be a new right then first come to he upon  knight extent be bar therefore I can agree with Mr finch and some that have  argue for the plaintiff in the writ that if there be several extent upon  statute acknowledge at Ventris er p different time that they be all present  right because the liberate deliver the land to the conusee to hold immediate  ut book property and therefore if a fine be levy he that have the extent upon  the puisne statute must claim immediate as well as be that have the first  extent whereas the extent upon a late statute until there come a extent upon a  elder statute be either turn to a reversion as I argue before or in the nature  of a future interest and therefore till the first extent be bar or some way  determine be that have the extent upon the puisne statute can have no present  right and consequent be not bind to claim but his right be preserve by virtue  of the second save of the statute of h but it appear by the verdict that above  ten year pass after the fine of Thomas Lewis without any claim by Edward Lewis  so that I conceive he be bar as to both extent so that which I have take  notice of to have already pass in the case be enough to bar the two extent of  knight and Gerrard and to let in the right of the extent of Elways and  Burroughs so that I think they may have enter or make their claim without any  thing more but it be find further in the case that in the year sir John Lewis  devise the premise by his will in write to Edward Lewis and the heir of his  body and for want of such issue to his two daughter who be marry to the earl  the lessors of the plaintiff and die in August and it be find that at the time  of the will and also of the death of the say sir John Lewis the land be in the  possession of Edward Lewis and in Michaelmas term Edward Lewis levy a fine of  the land in question to Francis Lewis to the use of Edward the conusor and his  heir Ventris now if we shall admit that the extent of knight and Gerrard  statute be not bar by the fine of Thomas Lewis let we see what will become of  they upon these thing do since and here I will agree with those that have  argue for the defendant that the devise of the inheritance to Edward will not  drown the extent upon Gerrard statute for as I have argue before I take the  extent of Elways and burrow statute after the eviction by the elder statute to  be turn to a reversional interest and then the interpose of the reversion will  hinder the drown of Gerrard extent in the fee devise to Edward Lewis as  aforesaid now therefore let we see what be find to have be do further in the  case and I conceive if we shall grant as the counsel for the defendant have  urge that the fine by Thomas Lewis have no effect as to the bar of Gerrard  extent nor that the devise of the inheritance of the premise to Edward Lewis  will not drown the extent as I agree it do not by reason of the extent  interpose that be in Elways and burrow case be as I have argue a reversional  interest I say admit all this yet when Edward Lewis who have the extend  interest upon knight and Gerrard statute in he and the estate of inheritance  also in Michaelmas term levy the fine to Francis Lewis to the use of himself  and his heir that fine must destroy and determine the extend interest that be  in he for where a fine be levy by he that have the fee and freehold in he  whatever right estate or interest there be in he beside passes inclusive in  the fine not by way of transfer the very interest it self but as it be  consolidate with the fee so as to determine and extinguish such interest none  can pretend that after this fine of Edward Lewis the extend interest do  continue in he they can not pass to Francis Lewis as assign or transfer by the  fine why then they must be destroy and I think it can be deny but that Elways  and Burroughs may have enter immediate the two former extent be take out of  the way and it be find that at the time of the fine Edward Lewis be in  possession so that five year pass without claim after the fine for it be find  that satisfaction be not acknowledge till nine year after it be plain that the  extent upon Burrono lie and Elwayss statute be bar as to the present right for  I think it be clear that when a former statute be determine whether it be by  release of the debt by purchase of part of the land by be bar by nonclaim upon  the fine satisfaction acknowledge or any other mean this let we in the puisne  statute Ventris and now we be come to the great question in the case admit the  extent upon Elwayss statute be bar in respect of the present right whether a  new right come upon the satisfaction acknowledge upon Gerrard S Ventris er p  statute so that there shall be five year more give by the second save of the  statute of h to claim upon that new right it have be much urge by those that  argue for the defendant that wherever there be a reversion or ail estate to  commence after the end of another estate that if a fine be levy though the  case be so that he in reversion may enter or bring his action so that five  year nonclaim will bar he as to the present right or remedy yet he shall have  five year more to claim when the time be incur or the limitation come that the  first or particular estate shall end now though the extent upon the two first  statute be so avoid that there may have be a entry upon Elwayss extent yet the  proper and natural determination of Gerrard extent be not till satisfaction  acknowledge upon record or by perception of profit appear upon record and then  there shall be five year give to claim and that by virtue of the second save  of the statute of h which be to this purpose videlicet save to all person such  right as first shall grow remain descend or come to they after the fine levy  by reason of any matter before the fine levy so that they take their action or  pursue their right within five year next after such right shall come now I do  not see that the condition of this save be perform by those that have the  right of Elways and burrow extent the right indeed come after the fine levy  and upon a matter before for it come after that the extent upon knight and  Gerrard statute be bar or otherwise avoid whether upon the nonclaim by the  first fine or their be destroy by the second fine which be levy by Edward  Lewis but there be no claim within five year after either of those fine so the  right clear be not pursue within five year after the right first come and this  have be hold necessary to be do where there have be only a right of action as  in sawle and clerk case in Jones and cro car where the case as to this point  be to this effect a remainder upon a estatetail be divest by the fine of  tenant in tail who have make ail estate for life warrant by the statute and  die without issue he in the remainder be bar from bring a formedon in the life  of the tenant for life within five year after the fine and have not a new five  year after the death of tenant for life though he can not enter in the life of  the tenant for life Ventris and the reason give in crook report be because he  have no other right after the death of the tenant for life than he have before  and this plain distinguish that and the case at the bar from the case that  have be cite of June and synes case in cro and Laund and Tucker for there the  fine be levy by the particular tenant which be a forfeiture which he in  reversion may choose whether he will take advantage of and as the case may be  it will be to his prejudice to take advantage of it where the particular  tenant have charge the land and therefore if he will he shall have five year  after the estate determine to claim as of his reversion which be another  distinct right from that of the forfeiture and this be the stand difference  that make the distinction where there shall be a new five year give to he in  reversion after the particular estate determine and where not as we see in  Margaret Podger case in   if the tenant for year be oust and a fine levy by  the seize he in the reversion be bind by the first five year nonclaim because  though he can not enter as if the estate for year have be determine or as in  the case before of the forfeiture yet he may have immediate bring ail assize  with which Sawl and clarke case exact agree and go upon the same reason as for  freeman case the resolution go whole upon the circumstance of fraud appear in  the case the principal of which be that the lessee continue in possession and  pay the rend I confess they have go a little far of late and now it be take  that he ill reversion shall have five year after the term be end by effluxion  of time though there be no forfeiture incur at the levy of the fine nor no  such plain circumstance of fraud as appear in Fermers case and the case put  before and cite out of Margaret Podger case be not hold to be law the contrary  whereof be take to have be resolve in Folley and Tancred case in car and I do  not intend to shake the authority of that case but admit it to be good in the  law yet I crave leave to observe that it be a resolution carry beyond Ventris  er p the word of the statute for the right be not pursue within five year next  after it first come for it be agree in Fermers case foe that there the  construction be against the letter of the statute and I must say it be a  construction by equity which be a little extraordinary to weaken the force of  a statute which be make for the quiet of man possession and to add force to  fine which be of so great regard in law and especial to make a construction by  equity contrary to the reason of the commonlaw which take no care of a future  right at all for he in the reversion in case of a fine levy at the commonlaw  depend whole upon the entry or claim of the particular tenant Ventris and in  default of that lose his estate as in Inst b and in Plowdens commentary in  stowell case I say again I do not design by this to oppose any case that have  be settle but I confess I shall not have go so far if I have not be lead by  authority and be not Willing to go a step far and now I shall endeavour to  show that this case go a great deal far and will be a great strain upon the  statute than yet have be and first I observe that upon all or most of the case  of a fine where there have be a estate for life or year in be at the time of  the fine that the possession be hold still in the particular tenant so that he  in reversion have no reason to suspect any fine or other thing do upon the  estate there be no alteration of the possession and this agree somewhat with  the reason of the commonlaw in case of a fine executory he that have right be  not bind to claim till there be a execution of the fine and transmutation of  the possession thereupon as in Plowdens commentary b in stowell case but here  it be find that the conusor and not the conusees or the tenant by extent or  either of they be in possession so that the land be in the possession of a  wrongdoer they which have right ought to have watch and may well suspect that  fine shall be levy to the prejudice of their respective right it be say in  Fermers case if a mere wrongdoer have get the possession levie a fine on  purpose to bind the right this shall bind notwithstanding his unjust design  but the difference that I chief rely upon to distinguish the case before we  from the case of reversion upon estate for life and year or the like  particular estate be these that in those estate there be either by a express  limitation of the party or a operation of law a certain and particular term or  end of the estate which until it happen it have not its proper determination  which a estate by extent have not I know it have be much insist on that the  natural and proper determination of a extent be satisfaction by a perception  of profit accord to the extend value whereas I can see but a release of the  debt or satisfaction by a sudden accident be as proper a determination of the  extent as if it be run out by perception of profit accord to the extend value  for when the first extent be out of the way the second be immediate to take  place or why this acknowledge satisfaction on record shall be the natural and  proper determination of the extent more than a release of the debt by the  conusee or destroy of it by a fine which be a high record than the statute or  the entry of satisfaction acknowledge thereupon Ventris to let he that have  the reversion upon a estate by extent have five year to claim after the first  extent run out by perception of profit or satisfaction acknowledge be to let  in a claim after a estate that no man can see to the end of for when it shall  be satisfy by the profit no man can tell and can much less tell that  satisfaction will ever be acknowledge whereas other particular estate have a  know and determinate limitation in the other case it can not be compute within  what compass of time a possession will be quiet and so the statute of fine in  a great measure will be defeat of its end but dly and principal it shall be in  the power of the party that have the extent in reversion to protract the time  as long as he please for till he think fit to bring the to know facias ad to  sum up he nor no one else can say the statute be satisfy for that must appear  by a account take in the to know facias nor none can compel the acknowledge of  satisfaction and so it shall be at the pleasure of stranger to he that be in  possession by a fine to make his estate liable to a future claim as long as  they please and sure this will render the statute of fine of little or no  effect and this make a estate by extent to differ whole from a estate for life  or year Ventris er p or such other like particular estate which will end of it  self and can be protract long than the proper limitation of the Act of any  whatsoever I will conclude with a answer to a objection that have be much  insist upon by those that argue for the defendant that a extent begin by  record and can end but by record videlicet either by a account take upon a to  know facias or satisfaction acknowledge upon the record of the statute or at  least be that be in reversion be bind to take notice of any other  determination of the extent to which I answer it begin by record but it may  end without matter of record for a release by the conusee after the extent  determine it to all intent and purpose and undoubted in such case be which  have a puisne statute may enter a extent upon a elegit begin by record yet  when satisfy by perception of profit be in reversion may enter so that the to  know facias as appear by our book be to be bring upon another reason and not  because the extent can end but by record but it be because of the incertainty  of the expense that must be satisfy and why shall not they which have have the  right of burrow extent be bind to take notice of the fine that have be levy as  much as the acknowledge of satisfaction and a fine be much more a public  record than the other especial since the statute of h have provide for the  make of proclamation upon it note the judgement in this case which be give in  banc king for Mr Greenvil the defendant in the action be here reverse Ventris  some remarkable and curious case in the court OF chancery boundary consecrated  the number three year car two in CANGELLARIA