case CLIFTON versus Jackson a on the marriage of his son b settle land to the  use of b for life remainder to the wife for life remainder to the heir of  their two body remainder to b in fee b and his wife by deed and fine mortgage  in fee and subject to the mortgage the land be settle to the use of b for life  and after his and his wife death to the heir of her body by he be get  remainder to his right heir the wife after her husband death suffer a common  recovery whether the estate of the wife for life by the first settlement and  the limitation to the heir of her body by the second do consolidate and if it  do whether the estate of the wife be alienable within the statute of Henry sir  gervas Clifton purchase the manor of Allwoodly in the county of York and on  the marriage of his son Robert with Sarah Parkhurst the plaintiff father and  mother the same be settle to Robert for life to Sarah his intend wife for life  remainder to the heir of the body of Robert and Sarah to be beget remainder to  Robert in fee afterward Robert and Sarah by deed and fine convey to the earl  of Chesterfield in fee by way of mortgage for the secure pound and after the  pound and interest pay the estate be settle to the use of Robert for life and  after his and his wife decease to the heir of the body of Sarah by he to be  beget remainder to his own right heir Robert the plaintiff Vernon chancery  case father die Sarah the plaintiff mother with the earl of Chesterfield the  mortgagee join in a fine and common recovery and article with Robert Jackson  to sell to he for pound Jackson bring his bill against the mother and the  plaintiff then a infant of two year old to have a specific performance of  those article and in a decree be make by the Lord Nottingham for that purpose  and the money pay to the plaintiff mother and Jackson put into possession the  plaintiff bring his bill of review to reverse the former decree and the chief  point insist on be whether the estate in the wife be alienable or within the  statute of Henry as a provision make by the husband for the wife for the  plaintiff it be insist that the wife be only tenant for life by the first deed  and the second settlement have limit the estate to the heir of her body that  limitation be but a contingent remainder and will not consolidate with the  estate for life it not be by the same but by a distinct conveyance but where  one take a estate of freehold and by the same conveyance there be a limitation  to the heir of his body there the heir of the body shall not take as purchaser  but those word the heir of his body will be take to be word of limitation and  operate to enlarge the first estate but where the estate for life be by one  conveyance and the grant to the heir of his body by another the estate do not  consolidate but the limitation to the heir of the body will remain as a  contingent remainder and cite Litt sect chudleighs case roll lane and pannells  case second if the estate will consolidate yet still it will be a estatetail  not alienable as be the provision of the husband and within the provision of  the statute of Henry Vernon chancery case and for that purpose cite crook  Elizabeth fol the plaintiff three husband and wife seize of a copyhold in fee  the husband purchase the freehold to he and his wife and the heir of their  body hold to be within the statute of Henry the case of snow and cutler Le v  copyhold to husband and wife and the heir of the husband and the husband  surrender to the use of his will and devise to the wife and the heir of her  body the estate shall not consolidate and cite the case of Crocker and Kelsey  in Jones report Baggott and palmer more and it be observe that the statute of  Henry by express word extend to use for the defendant it be insist that the  statute of h be a penal statute not to be extend or assist by any construction  in a court of equity no more than the statute of Gloucester which give locum  lay waste and Triple damage and in many case there be different rule in legal  estate and in estate in equity at law the wife be to have dower and the  husband to be tenant by the courtesy but not so of a trust second the wife by  join in the mortgage and subject her estate for life to the payment of the  mortgagemoney because in the nature of a purchaser of a estatetail in the  second settlement and the limitation to the heir of her body ought not to be  look upon as the provision of the husband but as her own purchase Vernon  chancery case er p whereto it be reply that as to the objection that the  statute of h be in the nature of a penal law the plaintiff come not for any  penalty or to make the wife forfeit any thing but to discover whether she be a  person disable from alien and as to dower and tenancy by the courtesy Vernon  chancery case those be creature of the commonlaw and depend entire on the  nature of the seize but where there be a act of parliament that bind as well  in equity as at law and the rule of descent be to be sacred and best preserve  in our law and the rule in law and equity be the same but dower and tenancy by  the courtesy be collateral to the estate and although the estate for life to  the wife by the first settlement be to be allow as valuable yet not adequate  to a estate of inheritance and where the estate move from the husband be it in  value more or less yet it be of the provision of the husband and within the  statute and it be not a penal statute but a remedial law and therefore extend  and construe favourable for the benefit of the heir in all the case in our  book a copyhold be not indeed within the statute because the Lord shall not  have a tenant put upon he that can alien and as to the objection that the wife  be to be consider as a purchaser every jointress be so either for a portion  pay land give in lieu or in consideration of marriage yet it be still of the  provision of the husband and within the statute of h it be sufficient that the  estate move from the husband though upon never so valuable a consideration pay  by the wife the word of the statute as describe the nature of the estate of  the wife the alienation whereof be prohibit be in any manor land tenement or  other hereditament of the inheritance or purchase of her husband or give to  the say husband and wife in tail or for term of life by any of the ancestor of  the say husband or by any other person seize to the use of the say husband or  of his ancestor Lord keeper be of opinion that a trust or a equity of  redemption be within the provision of the statute of two Henry which express  extend to use but if it be a penal statute as the statute of Gloucester the  heir shall not be aid or assist in equity and he be in doubt whether the  estate do not consolidate though by several deed the authority be only in the  affirmative that if by the same deed it shall consolidate not negative that if  by different deed they shall not and in the case of pibus and Mitford Le v  there no express estate for life limit but arise by implication and there hold  that the estate be consolidate for observation on the principal case and  particular on the doctrine here lie down by the Lord keeper and also on the  case of pibus v Mitford vide Fearne on count Rem that edit p et seq and it be  clear a settle point that the estate for life be by one instrument and the  limitation in tail by another they can unite do v fonnereau Doug Rep which  also see p for observation arg on the principal case and in which the doctrine  and authority on this point be so full consider that it seem unnecessary to  cite here the old case on the subject cur advisare vult a plea and demurrer  appear to have be put in to this bill of review and which after two argument  the saint July and the that Feb be order to be set down for judgement on a  future day and on the that June be allow Reg lib a fol