but where a man have three son and seize of three house devise a house to each  son and his heir with this proviso that if all his say child shall die without  issue of their body lawful beget then all his say message shall remain over  and be to his wife and her heir and it be hold in this case that these word do  not raise any cross remainder but that at the death of any of the son his  house shall go immediate to the wife and though a cross remainder may be by  implication where land be limit to two yet they can rise where three or more  house be limit to three without express limitation because of the  inconvenience Gilbert and witty ibidem vide coal v levingston vern where per  holt c I no cross remainder can be create by implication in a deed nor any in  a will between three or more unless the word of the will do plain express the  intent of the devisor to be so as where black acre be devise to a white acre  to b and green acre to c and if they die without issue of equity case abridge  their body well of one another the dawn then to remain there by reason of the  word of one another the dawn cross remainder shall be f OF executory devise OF  lease for year and here OF the limitation OF the trust OF a term as far as it  relate TO and agree with the devise thereof if a termor devise his term to a  for life the remainder to another though a have the whole estate for that be  in he during his life and so no remainder can be limit over at commonlaw yet  it be good by way of executory devise cro James roll Abr   the great question  in these case be whether the disposition of the term to a man for his life be  not such a total disposition of it that no remainder can be limit over it be  in the eye of the law a great estate than for any number of year which be  resolve I in the affirmative in the reign of e dyer by all the judge of  England but this resolution seem very severe and against natural justice that  a man shall be hinder from make provision for his family and the contingency  of it occasion a contrary resolution Elizabeth   light dyer for the judge  observe the good effect such limitation by way of trust have which be allow in  chancery permit farmer to dispose of their lease in the same manner by last  will and then the chancery the better to fix they in it allow of bill by the  remainderman to compel the devisee of the particular estate to put in security  that he in the remainder shall enjoy it accord to the limitation but when they  perceive that this multiply chancery suit they resolve that there be no need  of that way   a b I side but that the particular devisee shall not have power  to bar the remainderman so that the law have be long settle that executory  devise be good provide the contingency be to happen within a life or life all  in be for there can be no tendency to a perpetuity which be one great mischief  apprehend from these kind of limitation but what kind of executory devise do  or do not tend to a perpetuity will be best see by the case themselves if a  possess of a term for year devise it to b his wife for eighteen year and after  to c his old son for life and after to the old issue male of c for life though  c have not any issue male at the time of the devise and death of the devisor  equity case abridge er p