Burchett versus DURDANT see SC vent e r with note t Jones vent vent lev raym  by the name of Jones v Richardson skin where a remainder shall vest present  where not comb SC Danv pl pollexfen keb hob more Leon raym Jones Mod keb keb  lev salk more cro Lutw n Chan case Ro ab Writ of error in parliament upon a  judgement give in the exchequerchamber which be in affirmance of a judgement  in ejectment bring by Durdant against Burchett in b r the case be on a devise  in haec word sacred scripture I give unto John Higden and his heir during the  life only of Robert Durdant my land in d upon trust to suffer the say Robert  Durdant during his life to receive the rend and profit the say Robert Durdant  commit no waste and after the decease of the say Robert Durdant Carthew I do  give the say land unto the heir male of the body of he the say Robert Durdant  now live and to such other heir male and female as he shall hereafter happen  to have of his body c now at the time of this devise and at the death of the  testator the aforesaid Robert Durdant have only one son name George durant and  then live after the death of the say testator be the say John Higden and  Robert Durdant Carthew er p join in a feoff and fine of the premise to  Burchett the plaintiff in the writ of error and the defendant in the say writ  be lessee of the son and heir of George Durdant the general question be  whether George Durdant the son of Robert take a present remainder in tail by  this will as a purchaser and so vest in he immediate upon the death of the  testator or else a contingent remainder videlicet if he happen to survive his  father Robert Durdant for if so then it be bar by the fine and feoff above  because the remainder can not commence at the time of the determination of the  particular estate as in the common case of remainder limit to the right heir  of I S and the particular estate determine live I S but all the three court  videlicet of king bench exchequerchamber and parliament hold clear that it be  a remainder vest in George Durdant immediate upon the death of the testator  and that the word in the will now live be a sufficient description of the  person of George Durdant and that the other word videlicet unto the heir male  of the body of Robert Durdant do not only help to make up the description of  the person of George but be a good limitation of a estatetail to he as in the  case above where this limit to the right heir of I S there the word heir serve  not only to describe the person but to limit the estate wherefore the two  former judgement be now again affirm and there be the like judgement in  parliament concern part of the same land so devise as aforesaid and it be in  ejectment between Jones and Richardson another purchaser of parcel under  Higden and Robert Durdant