case thompson vers leech in b r see SC ld raym e r with note whether the  surrender of a person that be non compos chin be absolute void ld raym SC  earth SC comb SC holt S c lev S c Mod S c Mod SC vent SC salk SC show p c SC I  show Rep SC Eq Cas Abr pl Ch Cas vern hark   Litt b n fearne con Rem that edit  Bac Abr pow on count ejectment on the demise of Charles leech the defendant  plead not guilty and a special verdict be find to this effect videlicet  Nicholas leech be seize in fee of the land mention in the declaration by his  will date the that of December car devise they to his brother Simon leech for  life remainder to the first son of his body beget and the heir male of the  body of such son remainder to the second and three son c in tail male and for  default of such issue remainder to sir Simon leech and the heir male of his  body and for default of such issue remainder to the right heir of Nicholas the  testator who die seize and after his decease Simon leech be non compos chin on  the d of August car execute a deed of surrender to sir Simon leech whether  such a surrender be good comens er p without the notice of sir Simon be doubt  in c b and there adjudge that it be not by three of the judge against Ventris  see vent and this be afterward affirm in error bring in b r after such  surrender videlicet on the saint of November car Simon leech have issue  Charles leech the lessor of the plaintiff Simon leech die and Charles his son  enter as in his remainder and sir Simon leech eject he c wright sergeant who  argue for the plaintiff reduce the case to two question first whether the deed  of surrender make by Simon leech tenant for life he be non compos chin be void  or only voidable second admit that it be only voidable whether Charles the  lessor of the plaintiff can avoid it but by Northey on the other side and the  court it be agree that the second question can not in this case come into  debate for the surrender of Simon leech the tenant for life make to sir Simon  leech in the remainder before the birth of Charles the lessor of the plaintiff  have destroy the contingent remainder the which Charles claim if comens ever  such surrender be good notwithstanding even if it be afterward avoid for if  the particular estate be destroy before the contingency happen the contingent  remainder can vest for the remainder ought to take effect during the  particular estate or eastern instant that the particular estate determine if a  man grant or bargain and sell the reversion to husband and wife seize for life  in right of the wife the mesne contingent remainder be destroy yet the wife  may waive the estate after the death of her husband sand for as Northey say a  future right of entry can support a contingent remainder but a present right  of entry may as where a man who be tenant for life be seize the contingent  remainder thereupon descendant be not destroy and Northey cite cro car if a  feoff be make to the use of the husband and wife remainder to the heir of the  survivor and the husband afterward make a feoff the contingent remainder to  the survivor be destroy but holt c j say that be a very nice case for the wife  may avoid that estate and at the death of the husband as her time to avoid it  then happen the contingency also happen at the same time and holt c j also say  that if a man who be tenant for life with a contingent remainder make a feoff  with condition and afterward enter for breach of that condition the contingent  remainder be destroy if the contingency happen before the condition break so  also if the contingency happen before the entry although it be after the  condition be break for a title of entry be not sufficient to support a  contingent remainder any more than a future right but if the tenant for life  enter for breach of the condition and revive his estate and that before the  contingency happen in such case the contingent remainder may vest for by the  reentry of the tenant for life he be restore to his former estate and for the  same reason here in the present case if the surrender of Simon leech who be  non compos chin be only voidable the particular estate be still destroy by  such surrender for such time as it remain in force beside the particular  estate be expire and determine by the death of Simon leech and bow can his  heir avoid a estate which be execute a avoidance be of a tortuous comens act  and restore the estate but here the surrender of the tenant for life be in  force during his life and after his death it can be restore or revive for it  be absolute determine and bath no essence or be at all wherefore Northey be of  opinion and the court with he that the second question may be waive and that  this be the only question in the case videlicet whether the surrender of a  person who be non compos chin be absolute void Northey argue that it be not  void for he himself Simon leech can not avoid it and if it be void it must be  void to all intent and purpose and bow then can that man deed be void which  bind himself but holt c j incline to the opinion that his Simon leech deed be  void although it may have be in force against the non compos chin himself for  that be in force against himself be find upon the maxim that no man shall be  admit to disable himself the deed of a infant be void although he can plead  non be factum for when it bath all the essential of a deed it shall be intend  that the maker be of full age if be do not plead nonage say adjornaturThe  plaintiff have judgement but a writ of error be thereupon bring into the house  of lord in lev it be say that the judgement be reverse contrary to the opinion  of the judge assist except atkins Ch bar and Ventris the same be lie down in  Carth in show p c ld raym it be declare that the judgement be affirm but to  explain this diversity consult Danv Abr in the note comens er p