case stanhope versus thacker refer to in re green Baldock v green Ch d ante S  p father and son on the son marriage by lease and release convey land to  trustee and their heir to the use of the father for life remainder to his wife  for life remainder to the son for year if he shall so long live remainder to  trustee during his life to support contingent remainder remainder to the son  intend wife for life for her jointure remainder to the first and every other  son of that marriage in tail male remainder to the daughter or daughter of  that marriage and the heir of their body till they shall out of the rend issue  and profit have receive pound remainder to the heir of the body of the son  remainder to the precedent in chancery er p second son of the father and to  his first and other son remainder to the right heir of the son for ever there  be issue of the marriage only two daughter who be in possession after all the  particular precedent estate determine suffer a common recovery and it be hold  that this be no bar of the subsequent remainder the limitation to they be only  a security till the pound be raise Gilbert Thacker the father of Gilbert  Thacker his son on the marriage of the son by indenture of lease and release  in the year convey certain land to trustee and their heir to the use of  Gilbert the father for life then to jane his wife f or life remainder to  Gilbert the son for year if he shall so long live remainder to trustee and  their heir during his life to support contingent remainder remainder to the  intend wife for life for her jointure remainder to the first and other son of  that marriage in tail male successive remainder to the daughter and daughter  of that marriage and the heir of their body till they shall out of the rend  issue and profit of the say premise have raise and receive the sum of pound  and after the say sum raise or in case there be no such daughter or daughter  then to the heir of the body of Gilbert the son remainder to Francis precedent  in chancery Thacker the second son of old Gilbert and to his first and other  son in tail male successive and so in like manner to John Thacker a three son  of old Gilbert and to his first and other son in tail male successive  remainder to the right heir of Gilbert Thacker the son for ever the marriage  take effect and they have issue two daughter who be in possession after all  the other estate determine which be precedent suffer a common recovery to the  use of themselves and their heir and one question in this case be whether by  this recovery the remainder be not bar and it be argue that they be because  the primary intention of this limitation be to make they tenant in tail and  the raise of the pound be but the secondary intention thereof and when they be  so tenant in tail suffer a common recovery this bar their estate tail and the  remainder depend thereon and for this be cite and rely on a case in point  Benson and Hudson Mod to and the several case there put by my Lord chief  justice hale but as to this point my Lord chancellor be clear of opinion both  upon the first speak of it and the next day after that this be but in the  nature of a security for the pound and though the recovery bar the estate tail  and remainder at law yet the daughter be but in the nature of trustee after  the pound raise for those in remainder that before the recovery they have but  a estate tail for their security for that sum that now after the recovery they  have the feesimple but still the same in a court of equity be but a security  till that money raise that those in the remainder have the equity of  redemption in the same manner as the person who make that security will have  have if no such limitation in remainder have be that therefore they may at any  time by pay off that pound determine the estate of the daughter and then the  daughter will be but trustee for they that precedent in chancery this pound be  to be raise out of the rend issue and profit if the ordinary or annual rend  and profit of the land will not raise the money in a convenient time to answer  the intent of the settlement which be to provide portion for the daughter wms  that in a court of equity the same may be decree to be raise by a sale or  mortgage thereof which be the extraordinary profit of the same land and though  in this case the daughter have be in possession of those land for some time  and receive the rend and profit thereof yet they may still supply any  deficiency in the raise of these portion by mortgage or sale and the rend and  profit already receive shall be apply in the first place towards the interest  of the pound and the residue receive towards the principal and what shall fall  short to be make up by a sale or mortgage otherwise if they shall be confine  to raise the pound out of the annual rend and profit only they will be eat out  their portion and may never have any sum adequate to the provision intend to  they another point in this case be whether the remainder to the heir of the  body of Gilbert the son and the last remainder to the right heir of the say  Gilbert shall vest in such heir of the body or right heir by purchase for it  seem the two other son of old Gilbert be dead without issue and it be argue it  shall because Gilbert the son take but a estate for year and the remainder be  limit express to trustee and their heir during his life precedent in chancery  er p that the remainder must vest in the heir or heir of his body by purchase  he have no estate of freehold but on the other side it be argue that the son  join with his father and therefore it be to be presume that the father have  but a estate for life and that the inheritance move from the son and then it  be his old reversion in he and upon this occasion be cite the case of Fenwick  and Mitford   fearne count Rem S c precedent in chancery   light b and pibus  and Mitford I Mod that a man can make his heir or heir of his body purchaser  without depart with the whole feesimple that here he have not so do because  have but a estate for year the old estate for life continue in he and be  couple with the remainder to the heir of his body and that to his right heir  must necessary derive the estate to they by descent but to this it be reply  that the estate be limit to trustee during his life entire vary this case from  those which have be cite that this sort of limitation be not think of at the  time of those other case but be entire new and find out long after that by  reason thereof he can not be say to have any result or old use during his life  and that it have be so adjudge in the case of tippin and Cosuns fearne count  Rem S c by my Lord chief justice holt and all the court which case be report  in Mod though the judgement be not there mention but this be mere a point of  law and it not appear whether Gilbert the son have any or what estate though  he join in the conveyance whether a estate tail with a reversion to old  Gilbert in fee or whether he have a remainder in fee or what other estate my  Lord chancellor order a ejectment to be bring and on a special find of this  matter the question to be argue and determine at law and say that he think it  a very nice point note the very same point come in question before my Lord  chancellor Harcourt in the case of ewer and Howard ante Vid Eq Abr c but be  not determine precedent in chancery de boundary S mich in curian porter