case peck against channel Hilary term Elizabeth roll a woman tenant for life  marry the remainderman in tail and they join in a fine site grant et render to  a stranger to the wife for life with remainder to her husband in fee afterward  they suffer a recovery with single voucher to the use of the husband in fee  the fine do not create a discontinuance nor will the recovery bar the entail  more   light and a note more Owen lev Jones Leon   vent species of fish ab cro  car cruise on recov term Rep   b ante bull n p Onsl n p term Rep ejection  firmce upon a special verdict the case be one William burley be seize in fee  of diverse land in Shalford hold in soccage and by his will devise all his  land in Shalf ord to his feme for life e and f further devise all those my  land in Shalford call Somorsby to William burley his cousin in tail remainder  to his right heir and die the feme and William burley who be in remainder  intermarry and levy a fine to a stranger sur conusance de law come Ceo who  render it to the feme for life the remainder to the baron and his heir  afterward year Elizabeth the baron and feme suffer a recovery with single  voucher to the use of the baron and his heir the feme die the baron die  without issue the right heir of the devisor enter within the five year after  the death of the baron and let we to the plaintiff who be oust by the heir of  the baron and thereupon he bring this action et si c croak Elizabeth the first  question be whether this fine levy by the tenant for life and he in remainder  in tail he a discontinuance and all the court resolve nor will suffer it to he  argue that it be not any discontinuance for when he who have a remainder in  tail or a reversion in tail expectant upon a estate for life levy a fine croak  Elizabeth er p by himself or join with the tenant for life in the fine this be  not any discontinua but passes that only which he may lawful grant and none  shall make a discontinuance but he who be seize of a estate tail I I  possession as Littleton sect say second whether this recovery he any bar to he  in remainder in fee or a discontinuance thereto to take away his entry and all  the justice deliver their opinion several that it be not any bar or  discontinuance it can be a bar because that he who suffer the recovery be not  seize of the same estate tail at the time of the recovery sum ffered for by  the fine levy the estate in fee pass although there be not any discontinuance  of the remainder in fee and by the render a new estate be give back and they  be in df a new estate so that the recompense upon the recovery shall go to  that new estate and not to the ancient remainder and Walmsley say although  there be not any discontinuance of the estate tail nor of the remainder by the  fine yet he conceive that by the fine levy by tenant for life with he in  remainder in tail the remainder in fee be divest and it be a forfeit of the  estate for life and therefore there be a difference hetween a fine levy by  tenant for life and he in remainder in tail and a fine levy by tenant for life  and he in remainder in fee who have the entire estate for in the first case it  be a forfeiture but not in the other and then recompense shall never go to a  estate which be not in be at the time of the recovery and a recovery shall  never take away a entry which be by consent and quasi a conveyance and  therefore it shall not bind the entry of he who have right and be not like to  a recovery against tenant for life by title and without consent as Edward  entry congeable Edward pl Edward pl Henry pl Henry pl Henry entry congeable  and here this recovery be out of the Henry c because that he in remainder join  with the tenant for life wherefore they all agree for the matter in law with  the plaintiff but Anderson take a exception to the verdict that it be not good  because it be not find that these land in the action be call Somersby for  nothing be give in remainder but those land but all the other justice hold  that forasmuch as the contrary be not find it shall he intend that he have not  other land in Shalford than those which be call Somersby although that name he  not at first giveh they Whereforeit be adjudge for the plaintiff