case wind versus jekyll and Albone Lord chancellor Parker a devise a term for  year to b for life remainder to c c in the life of b devise his remainder this  be good and amount to c s declare by his will that his executor shall stand  possess of the term in trust for the devisee vide Pollexf Rep Veizy v Pinwell  this very point determine car by the then Lord keeper see hide v Parratt ante  roe v Jones h b more v Hawkins Eden Jones v roe t r do v tomkinson m S one  possess of a term for year devise it to a for life remainder to b b in the  lifetime of a devise his remainder toJ S who devise it over upon which peer  William er p the question now be whether a the devisee for life be dead the  devisee of I S shall have the term or whether it shall go to the  administratrix de good non with the will annex of b for the latter it be  object that there be no creditor or purchaser for a valuable consideration  concern so as to merit the assistance of a court of equity that in the notion  of law a s life be of long continuance than any term for year and the law must  be the same either in the case of a long or short term and since the first  devisee for life may possible survive the term and so the devise over be good  for nothing for this reason b have original but a possibility then if nothing  vest in b until the death of a who during his life have the whole term in he  as the law say he have it follow that b have nothing in he till the  possibility fall can transfer nothing to another nothing that who non to have  and that b the devisee in remainder can not assign over this term be say to  appear from a case cite in   b peer William Fulwoods case as also from   b  Lampetts case where it be observe to be the wisdom of the law that possibility  and choose en action be not grantable over so that possibility and choose en  action be put on the same foot and it be plain that a bind or choose en action  be not assignable but the assignee must sue in the assignors name against  which I urge that however the legal title to the remainder of this term after  the death of a may belong to the administrator de good non with the will annex  of b yet this court which consider the intention of the party and particular  in will will look upon the administrator in this case but as a trustee for the  devisee just as if b have by his will give the remainder of this term to I S  and make I n executor quoad the term this have be plain make the latter a  trustee for the former that agreeable to this be former resolution as in more  coal v more where one possess of a term devise it to a for life remainder to b  and make a executor b devise his remainder to c and die in the life of a and  in order to defeat c of his interest a assign his term to a three person  decree by Lord chancellor Ellesmere that a the executor and devisee for life  be a trustee for b and shall not be at liberty to destroy this remainder but  that the executor shall preserve the lease so as it may go accord to the will  with the performance whereof the executor be entrust nay in Chanc case gore v  Bickerstaff when the trust of a land be devise to a for life remainder to b it  be agree by all in one uniform opinion say the book that b may assign over  this trust which go further than the former case as it show that a trust of a  term in remainder may be transfer over by deed peer William and as to what be  cite from Lampetts case that possibility and choose en action be put upon the  same foot it be plain a obligee in a bind may devise away his bind there can  be no doubt but the devisee over in the present case may devise his remainder  so if b the remainderman shall have assign over his interest for a valuable  consideration pay by the assignee though this be void at law yet it have be  good in equity and whenever such remainder of the term have come into  possession b have as trustee for his assignee be compellable in equity to have  convey the term to he and it will have be as strong as if b for a valuable  consideration have covenant to assign over the possibility to the purchaser  whenever it shall fall into possession which sure have be good Lord chancellor  it have be resolve and the law be so that b the devisee in remainder can by  deed assign over this possibility for in law no estate vest in b during the  life of a and he have nothing can transfer nothing but the law be very  different now as to term for year from what it be former in ancient time there  be no lease for year but what be for short term which be very little regard  this be the reason why if a real action be bring against the person who have  the freehold and a recovery be thereupon have though by covin yet the lessee  for year who estate be precedent to the freehold be Inst bind by this recovery  and can not falsify until the peer William statute of h cap and therefore the  lease for year usuallymade be but short a life be presume to have a long  continuance than any term and therefore the devise of such a term after a life  be void again a devise of a lease for year differ from a devise of a freehold  or feesimple for instance can devise feesimple land which he have not at the  time of make the will but lease or personal estate though they be notthe  testator at the peer William er p time when he make his will vet if they be  his at the time of his death shall pass by the will therefore if one devise  all his real and personal estate and afterward acquire more of each kind the  real estate acquire afterward shall not pass by as to the personal estate and  yet the intention of the party must have be the same as to both but I take the  reason of this difference to be that with regard to the real estate buy after  the make the will suppose that not to pass still there be one in law capable  of take it videlicet the heir but as to the personal estate if the executor  though make before the acquire thereof do not take it it be uncertain who  shall three a devise of a chattelinterest differ from a grant thereof such  devise vest nothing in the devisee until the executor assent from whence it  follow that the executor Farrington v knightly be a trustee for the legatee  with respect to his legacy and this be the only reason why the legatee may  bring his bill in equity peer William against the executor for his legacy  suppose it to be a trust as also why the spiritual court can decree a  distribution of the undisposed surplus vide ibidem then if the devise be good  by way of trust suppose the testator who be devise in remainder of this term  in the present case have declare his executor to be but a trustee quoad the  term for I S have not this be good doubtless it have and it be as strong when  the testator do as here devise this remainder or possibility to I S for the  same amount to a direction make by the testator that when such remainder of  the term shall come in be by the death of a then his executor be to convey it  to I S and as this will have be good so the bequest of the remainder be  tantamount every legacy be a direction to the executor to deliver it over the  office of the executor be to pursue and perform the testator will and  direction and this be his direction or suppose b the devisee in remainder of  this term have covenant that when the remainder shall take effect in  possession he or his executor will convey this have be good and the covenantor  after such covenant have be but a trustee for the covenantee now why can this  trust be as well declare by a will as by a deed or if the remainderman in the  present case have make I S his residuary legatee and I m his executor in trust  shall not the residuary legatee have have the benefit of this possibility of  the term sure he shall and not the executor who will be but a bare trustee and  therefore as have be right put at the bar if the case have be that b the  devisee in remainder have by his will give the remainder of this term peer  William to I S and make I m executor quoad the term this have be plain good  for it be the intent and not the form of the will which be to be regard by the  same reason then that if the testator have make I m his executor quoad the  term in trust for I S it have be good even so when the administrator claim  that this legacy may be grant to he as administrator de good non with the will  annex of b he must be a trustee quoad this remainder of the term when it fall  into possession for the devisee and as a consequence of it I decree that the  administrator de good non c of b do assign over the term to the devisee of I S  to who b devise it Reg lib b fol that a possibility of a term be assignable  for a good consideration be in it all determine in the case of Theobald v  Duffay in the house of lord in march vide Higden v Williamson post Vol fearne  contingent Rem master v master ante send vide salk bunter v cook where the  court be in doubt whether a chattel real which the testator have not at the  time of make the will will pass thereby peer William er p